Question about Orthodox Belief

[CathNancy]

As you can see I am a Catholic and I admit that I know very little about the Orthodox Church. From reading some posts on GT I have some questions concerning Orthodox beliefs and how they differ from Catholic beliefs. If you do not mind could you tell me what the Orthodox belief is concerning original sin? I do not want to debate, but rather to understand your position.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[gtsecc]

Western understanduing of sin was highly shaped by St. Jerome's translation of the bible, particullarly Romans 5:12. The best essay on this matter, explaining the different views of sin, is by Meyendoff. Fr. Breck gives a helpful acount of all the views in his Life of Christ series from the OCA web page.

"Originating with Augustine, that dogma reflects a Latin understanding of the effects of “original sin.” Passages such as Romans 5:12 were (mis)interpreted so as to imply that the “original sin” of Adam is transmitted, rather like a defective gene, to all future generations. Therefore any conceived child bears “the sin of Adam” and consequently bears Adam’s guilt. "

For furthur reading, at least try this article:

http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=2006

[eoe]

We do not have the doctrine of original sin per se.

[choirfiend]

If you do not mind could you tell me what the Orthodox belief is concerning original sin? I do not want to debate, but rather to understand your position.

Dear Nancy,

The Orthodox view of the first sin, (original, if you like) the fall, and the consequences for mankind is generally as follows: Adam and Eve sinned. By their sin, they separated themselves from the source of Life. No longer connected in the same way to the will of God, they became subject to death and sin became more attractive as life was no longer easy and choosing to sin became easier. Their very nature was changed, and their fallen nature is how the world exists to this day. There is no shared guilt and no "stain" of original sin. People are not born stained with sin. The Theotokos did not have to be preserved from any stain. Christ was born with our fallen nature, and He redeemed it through HIs life, death, and Resurrection. Now those who are baptised into His death and rise in His life participate in His Human Nature, which is not fallen any longer.

[eoe]

Christ was born with our fallen nature
Also rememer that unassumed is unrestored. If Christ had not assumed this fallen nature then how could it be restored?

[CathNancy]

Thank you for your responses, they have helped, but I'm still a little confused. Maybe it would be easier if I define what the Catholic Church views as original sin. This is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


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.

I understand that this is one of the area of disagreement, I am trying to understand what the differences are. It is my understanding of the Catholic view that the sin of Adam and Eve was a personal sin, but it was through this sin that all of us are wounded, if you will, with a nature that no longer has a perfect relationship with God, our neighbor and all of God's creation. It is through the sin of Adam and Eve that death entered the world, both death of the body and death of the soul. That it is through Baptism that we are once again turned to God through Sanctifing Grace and born into His Body, the Church. It is with Baptism that we are regenerated and begin our journey to God.

Thank you for your input.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[Orthocat]

Whereas the west refers to it as original sin the east refers to it as ancestral sin.
the west took much of it from Augustine and then Calvin ran with it into who knows where...


The west (I'm generalizing) believes that we carry Adam's personal sin like a virus within us. In such that as soon as a baby is born it is guilty before God and damned.

The east believes we carry the consequences of Adam's sin, but not his personal sin. We are born, we suffer, we die - the consequences.

It was because of this the thought began in the west that in that logic Christ, being born of a human, carried Adam's personal sin and therefore could not be sinless. The west then had to come up with the immaculate conception of Mary to counter that.

We in the east don't have to deal with adding/subtracting anything as we still go with the ancient councils...

But it is more complex than my words and I am a simpleton...

[CathNancy]

Thank you Orthocat for your post. If I am reading the Catechism correctly though the Catholic Church also believes that we do not carry the original sin of Adam and Eve, but rather the result of that sin, as you state, we are born, we suffer, we die. I'm not sure I see the difference, maybe I'm missing something here.

In regards to Mary, I really don't want to get sidetracked, but I will say that it is my understanding that because she is the New Eve, Mary was conceived as Eve was created without original sin. She was conceived with, and maintained throughout her life, a perfect relationship with God. However, I would have to believe that she was subject to the results of orignial sin in that she most definitely suffered at the death of her Son. There is no defining doctrine on her death, so Catholics are free to believe that she did or did not die before her Assumption into heaven.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[eoe]

unassumed = unrestored.

This doctrine and the resulting doctrines and theories (IC Limbo...)assert that Mary and Christ did not have our fallen nature. Unassumed is unrestored. If Christ did not have our fallen nature then it is unrestored the incarnation is incomplete.

This is what happens when you use a western mindset and an intellectual approach to define things that are not able to be defined.

Saint Gregory Palamas pray to God for us!:crosseo:

[CathNancy]

Interesting, I had not thought of the incarnation in this way before. I have to ask though, if the Son assumed our nature in all ways but sin, is it through free will that He chose not to sin?

Thank you,

Nancy

[eoe]

nteresting, I had not thought of the incarnation in this way before. I have to ask though, if the Son assumed our nature in all ways but sin, is it through free will that He chose not to sin?

Thank you,

NancyRemember that the Son has 2 wills. His human will voluntarily submits to the divine. In that way I suppose you could say yes, it is his free will that he chooses to submit to the divine will.

For more on the will of Christ CLICK HERE (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/maximus_freewill.shtml)

[CathNancy]

Then we would agree on the following statement from the Catholic Catechism?

Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that 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.110 Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[eoe]

I believe so.

[Orthocat]

yes, that was in response to the heresy of monothelism, which stated that Christ had only one will, which was divine, therefore denying His humanity.

[CathNancy]

I believe that the following quote from the Catholic Catechism, if I am understanding it correctly, is saying that although Jesus was born with a human nature, because He also has a divine nature, He was never seperated from the Father as we are. This seperation that all mankind except for Christ experience, is a result of the fall. Therefore, when Jesus assumed our nature, it was a fallen nature, but because He also has a divine nature, He is still in a perfect union with the Father. And that it is through His divine will that He did not sin. Would you agree?


Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

Peace in Chris,
Nancy

[Orthocat]

In the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, sin, grace, and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, they misused it and broke God's commandments, and now deserve punishment. God's grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment.
The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, for humans are most human when they are completely united with God.
The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man's communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called "deification." This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God's divine life.

[eoe]

Holy Saint Gregory Palamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Palamas), pray to God for us!

[choirfiend]

Nancy,

There is no separation for us of "original sin" being anything OTHER than the consequences of it. So to say that Mary was preserved from original sin, yet somehow suffered (a consequence) does not compute for us. Mary had a fallen nature. She was mortal, and needed a Savior. Her Son was born with this same fallen nature--like ours exactly. The difference comes in in what He did with it. We have all used our free will in our fallen nature to fall short of the glory of God. Christ used this fallen nature in perfect harmony iwth His Father's will. He, the GodMan, in His humanity was subject to death--but in His Divinity, He arose again.

This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception SHOWS that there is something about the idea of Original Sin that denotes some smear on the soul, some stain of sin. For the Orthodox, there is NO stain of sin. Mary was born without sin--and so are all of us. There is nothing from God to remove from us when we are born, or to preserve us from inheriting. Mary was exactly the same as the rest of us--b.c if there was some smear on our soul that God could PREVENT us from having, why wouldn't He do that for all people? It makes no sense whatsoever. This is also why Church history says that Mary died--it is not an optional belief for us.

[CathNancy]

Thank you all for your answers to my questions and your patience with me. It has helped me to better understand your faith.

God bless all of you,
Nancy

[holyorders]

If I may barge in a little. :)


If the fallen nature of mankind was not a "stain" nor a "punishment" why does the Old Testament mention sheol as the end for people and not heaven?

One of the reasons why my Church defines things, especially in regards to sin, is having a full knowledge and full consent of the sin. This acknowledges God's mercy and justice. The "stain" is not a warrant for condemnation if God's perfect justice mysteriously recognizes the circumstances of the sin. In the Church people are condemned by a willful act rather than a original sin. As a matter of fact the "stain" of original is the effects of death and a predisposition to sin. When we say that Mary did not have original sin, she did not have this disposition to sin. Its not that she could not sin- she merely had a completely empty desire (or intent) to do so.

[MichaelArchangelos]

Well, we see sin as a mistake that needs to be corrected, not a stain on the soul that needs to be purged with fire after death.

We believe in the Fallen Nature of Man. Man is born with a sinful nature, not the sin of Adam itself. How can a baby have committed a mistake? For that is how we see sin; a mistake which requires correction.

And about the Holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, if she was born free from original sin, then she was a sort of super-human. Christ had to be born of a truly human mother, who had been born in the Fallen Nature.

[Theophorus]

Thank you all for your answers to my questions and your patience with me. It has helped me to better understand your faith.

God bless all of you,
Nancy

I like Pope Loe's (5th century) letter concerning Eutyches. It is one of my favourites concerning this issue.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm

So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours.

A thought to consider, trees and stars do not sin yet they die as a result of Adam.

[holyorders]

Well, we see sin as a mistake that needs to be corrected, not a stain on the soul that needs to be purged with fire after death.

We believe in the Fallen Nature of Man. Man is born with a sinful nature, not the sin of Adam itself. How can a baby have committed a mistake? For that is how we see sin; a mistake which requires correction.

And about the Holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, if she was born free from original sin, then she was a sort of super-human. Christ had to be born of a truly human mother, who had been born in the Fallen Nature.
In the CC original sin and salvation are not inter-related. We hurry up to baptize our children because we do not know what truly happens.

The fire to purge the "stain" is before death and not after. Our only real chance is now. That "fire" is the heavy grace of God Almighty making us shift into His perfection ("be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect"). A need to be perfect means that we are infinitely imperfect because of sin.

[holyorders]

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM#$1IU) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM#$1IV) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM#$1IW) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.


For general interest.

[choirfiend]

If I may barge in a little. :)


If the fallen nature of mankind was not a "stain" nor a "punishment" why does the Old Testament mention sheol as the end for people and not heaven?

One of the reasons why my Church defines things, especially in regards to sin, is having a full knowledge and full consent of the sin. This acknowledges God's mercy and justice. The "stain" is not a warrant for condemnation if God's perfect justice mysteriously recognizes the circumstances of the sin. In the Church people are condemned by a willful act rather than a original sin. As a matter of fact the "stain" of original is the effects of death and a predisposition to sin. When we say that Mary did not have original sin, she did not have this disposition to sin. Its not that she could not sin- she merely had a completely empty desire (or intent) to do so.

I would like to answer your question, but also remind everyone that debating by non-Orthodox is not allowed in TAW. As well, a reminder to Orthodox not to bring visitors into debate:)


Sheol is not Hell. People went to Sheol because people were separated from God and could not reunite with Him on their own power. God had to come to them, which He did in His Incarnation. There was a great chasm fixed between Abraham's bosom (not Heaven/the New Earth that is the eventual home for all the sheep) and Sheol (which is not hell, or the eventual home of all the goats, following the Last Judgment).

If God would prevent Mary from wanting to sin, why would He not bestow that grace upon all of us? It would save the world so much pain! None of us would sin! We would not give full consent or willfully choose sin! We wouldn't have any desire to do so, so why would we? There wouldn't be any personal fault of ours at all, and we would just be kinda waiting around and eventually dying until Christ came and granted us the possibility of eternal life.

So why doesn't God do this?

He didn't bestow this immaculate grace upon Adam or Eve--they had the chance to choose to sin or not, and they quite obviously desired to sin, for that is what they chose, and when confronted, they chose to blame God instead of repenting.

The Orthodox do not teach this Immaculate Conception. They never have. Mary was not preserved from the desire to sin. Mary was a woman just like us. But in every possibility, in the face of every temptation and desire to sin, Mary CHOSE not to, of her own free will. Mary was living with her fallen nature, but living in accordance with God's commandments. Even remaining sinless, she still needs a savior. Just living without sin cannot save us. Living WITH sin can condemn us, but even living sinlessly, we will still die, and need eternal life from Christ. Mary died, and received eternal life from her Son.

This is the life Christ was born into. It is our life. This is our responsibility as well. It is what the Hebrew life was about, and it was what our life is about--obeying the Commandments, obeying God's will---only now, we have something more. We have the Resurrection and complete union with God, our humanity joined with His Divinity just as Christ has ascended with His restored Humanity into Heaven. Christ Himself underwent temptations (in the desert). A priest once said that in order to have defeated sin and make is possible for us to overcome the temptations, Christ experienced every possible temptation known to man, and never gave in to any of them. Because He, a man did it, we, mankind, can do it too, with His grace bestowed upon us.
He was tempted and in every way like us--save sin! He never chose to sin, and being God, He was not bound by death, but smashed the gates and broke the iron chains of Sheol!

[holyorders]

Just wanted to be friendly. Personally, I think there is much less differences than are shown between the CC and the EOC.

What I really wish is that Jesus would come by and meet all the patriarchs and the pope and clear up all the confusions so that we could be one Body in Christ. I should pray for this- hopefully us coming together (CC and EOC) would change the world for the better- so that the visible Church could be more present.


In Christ,
holyorders

[choirfiend]

I think we have much in common--but I think our differences are important. It is only by recognizing and coming to understand where we differ doctrinally that we will be able to reconcile those different beliefs and share a single set of beliefs once more. With God's will, it may be done someday.

[CathNancy]

I think we have much in common--but I think our differences are important. It is only by recognizing and coming to understand where we differ doctrinally that we will be able to reconcile those different beliefs and share a single set of beliefs once more. With God's will, it may be done someday.
Dear Choirfriend,

I also believe that we have much in common, but we also have differences. I agree, it is only through understanding these differences and reconciling them that we will ever be able to reunite. I pray for this because it is what Jesus prayed for, that we may be one. Nothing is impossible with God.

This is why I posted my original question and again I thank all for your answers. It was never my intent to debate, I understand my faith and the CC's stand on original sin, I did not understand yours.

Thank you again for your explanations.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[choirfiend]

Dont worry, no one was very debative! Just looking to keep it that way:) You're welcome to find out what we believe anytime. Or come to the Taverna and get force-fed Greek pastries.