Salvation Theology of Catholic and Orthodox Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Tim215Mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Original Sin in the western Church is not that much of a mystery. I have opened this topic with the intent of trying to reconcile, or if possible to find some common ground, on the matter of how the Fall effects soteriology.

I would ask if any EO would like to clarify what their tradition means by the Fall and what were it’s consequences?

And I pray that God grant us all the gift of charity as we do our best to pursue His will.
Click to expand...
Here’s a good reading material.

preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Then I would suggest we start from how the EO perceives the Fall and maybe we can go from there?
Click to expand...
There’s another thread that is discussing this. Let’s talk about it there, or ask the mods to merge these two threads. Because we can’t have two running threads and posting stuff all over the place.

Edit: Eric has merged the threads. Goodie! 👍
 
There is no difference in thinking there, its a misunderstanding assigned to the West. The CCC clearly address’s guilt and the reason for the judgement is also misrepresented. It was all Fatherly love in the Lords plan, as was the judgement.

CCC 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.

And same source the Fr used to quote.

“Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case,
amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full
responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia , the
more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to
the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002).”

I also don’t see specifically “ancestral” mentioned by any early church father pre Nicene either?
 
GaryTaylor said:
I also don’t see specifically “ancestral” mention by any early church father pre Nicene either?
Click to expand...
You are arguing semantics, that the fact a certain terminology did not exist means the belief did not exist. Such is not the Orthodox belief. When we introduce terminology, it is merely to clarify faith that is already there. The term “ancestral sin” was coined only to differentiate the theology on The Fall as separate from the Roman Catholic definition. But nothing about ancestral sin is about something the Fathers never taught.
 
So this must hold true for Original…sin and the connection of the words to the thinking. Point is neither word existed, but what did exist is but one understanding. I’m not seeing your argument by your link which enters a “false” assumption to the West as you see.

Anyway here is the New Advent link on Original Sin so we could read what is said and not what is not said.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Other than that I see no issue nor difference.
 
GaryTaylor said:
So this must hold true for Original…sin and the connection of the words to the thinking. Point is neither word existed, but what did exist is but one understanding. I’m not seeing your your argument by your link which enters “false” assumption of the West as you see.

Anyway here is the New Advent link on Original Sin so we could read what is said and not what is not said.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Other than that I see no issue nor difference.
Click to expand...
There is no one understanding, because the Augustinian understanding of the Fall never really propagated in the East. The Fathers in the East never taught that nor understood that. Did you read the link I posted above? Here it is again: preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/
 
Listen to me again, I read and quoted from the original which he used, of course I read it or I wouldn’t have caught the two points which I did.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Listen to me again, I read and quoted from the original which he used, of course I read it or I wouldn’t have caught the two points which I did.
Click to expand...
But the biggest thing is that original sin is passed on from human to human. That alone is a huge difference. And look at the classical understanding of original sin being a stain.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But the biggest thing is that original sin is passed on from human to human. That alone is a huge difference. And look at the classical understanding of original sin being a stain.
Click to expand...
East

sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to
the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002).

West

This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”

The condition common to all humanity-above.
 
“stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace”] = missing the mark
New Advent above

Also “missing the mark” sounds rather Western, as I remember St Theresa of Avila used the term often.
 
So am I too much of a simpleton, or isn’t the question this:

Do you believe you inherit ACTUAL GUILT from God over the Fall, or do you believe you inherit a condition of sin and death?
 
Am I wrong, or does it seem between east and west we’re simply making a distinction without a difference?
 
GaryTaylor said:
East

sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to
the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002).

West

This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”

The condition common to all humanity-above.
Click to expand...
Yes, the condition is common to all humanity. But how it is transmitted (or if it is transmitted at all) is different. That is big.
 
RKO said:
So am I too much of a simpleton, or isn’t the question this:

Do you believe you inherit ACTUAL GUILT from God over the Fall, or do you believe you inherit a condition of sin and death?
Click to expand...
If it isn’t actual guilt, then why does Mary need to be immaculately conceived? If it was just a condition of sin and death, why did Mary die if she was free from original sin?

Also, it was clear from the earlier teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that Original Sin is a stain on one’s soul.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Yes, the condition is common to all humanity. But how it is transmitted (or if it is transmitted at all) is different. That is big.
Click to expand...
You said there is this large difference. Then you should be able to articulate this, not I for you. Your not even sure if or what was transmitted here. 🤷
 
ConstantineTG said:
If it isn’t actual guilt, then why does Mary need to be immaculately conceived? If it was just a condition of sin and death, why did Mary die if she was free from original sin?

Also, it was clear from the earlier teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that Original Sin is a stain on one’s soul.
Click to expand...
All this was answered there is no guilt which was answered and shown in the CCC… You need to either show this, or admit per the CCC you are wrong. Its that simple.

Stain was addressed above either acknowledge what was said or elaborate. Your becoming “circular” already, which means your “grasping”…

How about you explain the East perspective of Mary and the Incarnation according to the 4th Council posted. And the Ancestral Sin which Mary was subjected to. Then we could compare the two.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is no one understanding, because the Augustinian understanding of the Fall never really propagated in the East. The Fathers in the East never taught that nor understood that. Did you read the link I posted above? Here it is again: preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/
Click to expand...
I read the link. I see a lot of affirmations with Catholic soteriology.

And I also see many misunderstandings about Augustine and what he said.

I also see a lot of confusion with what Augustine wrote and how it was later picked apart and misinterpreted by the Western reformers, Calvin and Luther, to justify their heresies.

I keep seeing the charge of legalism, but I don’t see any proof.

I do have a question as far as the fall. The EO say that the result of the Fall was death, not the guilt, the woundedness, that by sinning death was a result,“for the wages of sin is death.”

How is it that one was passed on to Adam’s progeny and not the other?

The reason I ask is one, because of Romans 5: [12] Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned –
[13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

I’ve heard of a principle before where Jewish priests even down to the latest of the lines were said to be “sons of” the head of the line, beit Aaron, Zadok, or even Melchezedek.

As is in Hebrews 7:[5] And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brethren, though these also are descended from Abraham.
[6] But this man who has not their genealogy received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
[7] It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.
[8] Here tithes are received by mortal men; there, by one of whom it is testified that he lives.
[9] **One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
[10] for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchiz’edek met him. **

So, wouldn’t be consistent to consider that, if by this principle, all men were in Adam’s loins when he first disobeyed God? And since, according to this principle, we sinned with Adam; his guilt and sin is our guilt and sin. Therefore we all reeceived the wages of the sin: death?
 
I mentioned this earlier this week.

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
Council of Orange 529’AD

Death of the body, death of the soul.

Also in Love as I mentioned.🤷

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top