Dear sister BirdsofDawn,
- Generally, where do ECs fall on the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Are they bound to it the way RCs are? Maybe that’s a stupid question, but I’m hoping the answer is no, because I am finding that I am having some real issues with RC doctrine of original sin… which leads me to…
The CCC is a guide, not a rulebook.
- So, where do ECs fall on original sin? How does it differ from full-out Orthodoxy? I only yesterday learned how very different the Orthodox understanding of the Fall and its results, and the importance of Baptism, and all of that is, as original sin is absent. It endears me (in part because I just had a miscarriage and it pushed me to really examine how much or little sense I see in the RC position).
The Eastern Tradition on Original Sin is not opposed to the Latin Tradition on Original Sin. Many misunderstand what the Latin Church teaches on Original Sin regarding guilt. Like so many things, the source of the misunderstanding is language. When the Latins say that we inherit guilt from Adam, most people think it means that the Latin Church is teaching that we inherit the BLAME for Adam’s sin. But that is completely false. There are two Latins words that are commonly translated as “guilt” in Latin theological language -
culpa and
reatus.
Culpa (aside from its normal translation of “guilt”) means “blame” while “reatus” refers to a certain state. To explain, imagine that a man damages someone else’s property. That man acquires both
culpa (personal blame for the action of which he is guilty) and
reatus (a state of indebtedness to repay the damage) for that action. Suppose the man dies, yet he has not yet paid off the damage. Imagine that this man has a son who inherits his estate. The son will naturally inherit the
reatus (the state of indebtedness to pay off the damage), but the son has certainly not inherited the
culpa (the personal blame) for the man’s action.
Most people think that the Catholic Church’s dogmatic documents on Original Sin use the term
culpa when speaking of “guilt.” Thus, there is a misconception that when these documents speak of inheriting the guilt of Adam, they are teaching that that we are inheriting the BLAME for his personal sin. Wrong. The term used by the dogmatic documents is actually
reatus. Adam’s sin resulted in a certain state of being for himself and his descendants - i.e., we are born lacking the state of holiness in which Adam and Eve were created, and this state of being in a lack of holiness needs to be satisfied according to the Justice of God. Through the blood of Jesus Christ applied to us at Baptism, we acquire this state of Original Holiness.
Having discussed what “the guilt of Adam” is NOT according to the Latin Catholic teaching, the distinction between the Eastern Tradition on Original Sin (on the one hand), and the Western/Oriental Traditions on Original Sin (on the other) must be admitted. The idea that the Justice of God must be satisfied because of the state of sinfulness (i.e., lack of Original holiness) into which each of us is born is an idea which seems to be missing from the modern Eastern Tradition. It is present in the Eastern Tradition as late as St. Gregory Palamas, but somewhere along the way, it seems to have disappeared or at least diminished to a point that you will find Eastern Orthodox controversialists disparage the Western Tradition on the Justice of God (you’ll hardly find EO talk against the Oriental Orthodox Tradition on the Justice of God, but I think that is because many EO don’t even know that such a teaching is found in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition - many EO think the only difference between EO and OO is Chalcedon). It would be interesting to trace this development of doctrine within Eastern Orthodoxy.
- On Eastern Canon Law - my main question is, is there a Sunday obligation, like RCs are bound to? I am feeling really burdened by the Sunday obligation - I love love love Holy Communion, I love prayer, but I hate that the bottom line is that attendance is a duty - it tends to dominate my approach. Especially since having a baby (who’s almost 2 now) I’ve come to realize just how hard it will be to attend Mass as an open-to-life family for the next 20 years or whatever.
It is a duty to love God, and that is the heart of the Latin notion of “obligation.” It is the divine Law. If you attend Mass only because you feel you have to, that would not be what the Latin Church teaches – I guarantee it. Ask any Latin Catholic priest this question, “SHOULD I ATTEND MASS BECAUSE I HAVE TO OR BECAUSE I LOVE GOD?” I guarantee you that any Latin Catholic priest would answer you with the latter. In fact, the Latin Catholic Church makes a distinction in its Sacramental theology on Confession between the notions of CONTRITION and ATTRITION. Contrition is sorrow out of sheer love of God, while attrition is sorrow out of fear of punishment or some other lesser motive. To the Latin Catholic Church, though both are sufficient to obtain forgiveness, contrition is the more perfect approach. So the Latin Church DOES understand that our actions must be borne of love for God, not any lesser motive (though the Latin teaching does accept such lesser motives in the road to perfection). You should read more about the mystical tradition of the Latin Catholic Church, which you may find enlightening and very satisfying. I have a lot of Latin Catholic friends and I know of none who approach Mass out of mere obligation. I do believe that one can obtain a mentality of legalism within Latin Catholicism more easily than in the other Catholic Traditions (Eastern and Oriental), but one can overcome that legalism just as well within the confines of the Latin Catholic Tradition. The Latin Catholic Tradition has much to offer – you just have to look for it.
If your heart is in the Eastern Tradition, that is just as rich as the Latin Tradition, so go for it.
Blessings,
Marduk
