Original Sin

[isshinwhat]

Given the following statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox theologies of Original Sin?

404 (javascript:openWindow('cr/404.htm');) 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.294 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 (javascript:openWindow('cr/405.htm');) Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

Neal

[kamikat]

from http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."

In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

From http://www.antiochian.org/1311

In the 6th Decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1692) the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church affirm that "We believe the first man created by God (Adam) to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine Commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent (Satan). And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand (actual) sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well as those under the shadow (of the Law), as under the truth (the Gospel), such as the divine Forerunner, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as punishment for the (original) transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in childbearing, and while on our (earthly) pilgrimage to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death." What does all of this mean? Since Adam alone committed the "original sin" (or, more properly, the "ancestral sin"), he alone bears the guilt for that sin. However, the consequences of that first sin -- e.g., sickness, pain, death -- and most especially the allpowerful propensity to sin, is inherited by all of his descendants. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe that we are all born sinners, guilty of Adam's sin from our very conception in the womb.

Hope these help!

[isshinwhat]

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe that we are all born sinners, guilty of Adam's sin from our very conception in the womb.

Thank you for your response. The first sentence of paragraph 405 says:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

Given that the Catholic Church teaches we are not personally guilty of Adam's sin, only our own, and given that Original Sin is "is a deprivation of original holiness and justice," what then are the differences?

[icxn]

...Given that the Catholic Church teaches we are not personally guilty of Adam's sin, only our own, and given that Original Sin is "is a deprivation of original holiness and justice," what then are the differences?
Depending what you mean by "deprivation of original holiness and justice," it seems that there isn't much difference. On the other hand, if indeed there isn''t any difference, then why do you require the Theotokos to be immaculately conceived?

[isshinwhat]

On the other hand, if indeed there isn''t any difference, then why do you require the Theotokos to be immaculately conceived?

That is what started my thinking... It begins a litany of questions---

Why does one side believe in the Immaculate Conception, and the other it is unnecessary?

If there were no difference between the Blessed Virgin and us at birth, why do we both Baptize infants?

It is all great food for personal thought and reflection, which is why I posted here. I am sorely lacking in Eastern Orthodox thought, and in order to think deeper, I would like more info.

Thanks to all.

Neal

[icxn]

A more relevant question would be if the Theotokos did not have a fallen human nature (that is what immaculate conception entails) then how come Christ did (see quote below), seeing that He was subject to suffering, thirst, hunger, etc and death? The first man was not subject to such passions. Also how come your theology allows for her to have died? (Another inconsistency there)

We confess, then, that He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man's attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man.

All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome. - St. John Damascene, "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith"

[eoe]

why do we both Baptize infants?
To bring them into the Church.
Why does one side believe in the Immaculate Conception, and the other it is unnecessary?
Papal innovation.

A more relevant question would be if the Theotokos did not have a fallen human nature (that is what immaculate conception entails) then how come Christ did, seeing that He was subject to suffering, thirst, hunger, etc and death? The first man was not subject to such passions. Also how come your theology allows for her to have died? (Another inconsistency there)
Exactly - unassumed is unrestored.

[QuantaCura]

I've been through this in here before :D

We both agree there is a difference between those outside the Church and those who have become members of the Body.

The difference with our understanding on original sin has to do with what terms we look at it: either sanctifying grace or divination.

[QuantaCura]

Mary was full of grace from the beginning. That is the essence of the immaculate conception--this touches on original sin when it is thought of in terms of sanctifying grace. Normally, we do not receive sanctifying grace until we are Baptized--thereby becoming members of the Body and receiving the life flowing from the Head through the Body. The angel greets Mary as full of grace before baptism was even available..

Likewise, the same emnity is put between the woman and the serpent as is put between her Seed and the serpent.

EO, as far as I can tell, also believe she was full of grace and never sinned, correct?

[choirfiend]

God's grace is not restricted to beginning to occur at baptism (the RCC view, which you expressed above, is one reason why death before baptism ended up in limbo for infants). God's grace is certainly poured out alllllll over the OT, long before baptism. Baptism is death and resurrection into the body of CHrist---but before CHrist came, grace certainly existed and was given to men who sought Him.

[choirfiend]

We have to believe that one can be "full of grace" even AFTER sinning, if such is the case, through repentence, forgiveness, and the renewing of our hearts, always seeking God.