explain "original sin?"

[ArmyMatt]

When it comes to "development of doctrine," I ask myself what is the deadline for legitimacy? I mean, at what century or decade do we stop calling men "Fathers" and start claiming they are developing doctrine?

And I think for me the problem I've ALWAYS had as an Orthodox Christian, to say it frankly, is the Fathers! In Catholicsm, there is great love for the Fathers, but the Church recognizes their diversity of thought and that not all of them were right about everything all the time in every place. So the Popes and magisterium have taken it collectively, holistically, and made the Fathers vast treasury of statements of theology and moral teachings, something coherent and unified, something we can sink our teeth into.

In Orthodoxy, you have zillions of saints and fathers taking positions on things and a huge array of varying and sometimes opposing viewpoints. That's why we can have a long thread debating "Toll Houses" and Father Seraphim Rose, etc. These men took one angle or one theological opinion, and almost put a stamp of infallibility on it.

In Orthodoxy, there are a zillion voices talking at the same time and for me, it is almost like I hear none of them. In Catholicism, they could silence them, come to an orderly, coherent, palatable set of theological dogmas, and I could grasp it.

well, the deadline was Pentecost. that was when the Spirit was poured out on all flesh and Christ said that Spirit would lead them into all Truth. so there is nothing to add since Pentecost. all of the councils and such have always followed the pattern of what has always been believed since the beginning. we may have new ways to express that belief (ie you won't find the phrase God is Trinity in the Bible), but the belief itself does not update.

where there is debate and discussion, that does not fall under dogma, because our dogmas are not up for debate.

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

Guilt is being responsible for a offensive or criminal action. Orthodox Christians are not exempt from this responsibility if they act in such a way.

That's true. Sorry for not being more specific

 

[MariaRegina]

When it comes to "development of doctrine," I ask myself what is the deadline for legitimacy? I mean, at what century or decade do we stop calling men "Fathers" and start claiming they are developing doctrine?

And I think for me the problem I've ALWAYS had as an Orthodox Christian, to say it frankly, is the Fathers! In Catholicsm, there is great love for the Fathers, but the Church recognizes their diversity of thought and that not all of them were right about everything all the time in every place. So the Popes and magisterium have taken it collectively, holistically, and made the Fathers vast treasury of statements of theology and moral teachings, something coherent and unified, something we can sink our teeth into.

In Orthodoxy, you have zillions of saints and fathers taking positions on things and a huge array of varying and sometimes opposing viewpoints. That's why we can have a long thread debating "Toll Houses" and Father Seraphim Rose, etc. These men took one angle or one theological opinion, and almost put a stamp of infallibility on it.

In Orthodoxy, there are a zillion voices talking at the same time and for me, it is almost like I hear none of them. In Catholicism, they could silence them, come to an orderly, coherent, palatable set of theological dogmas, and I could grasp it.

In Orthodoxy, we believe that Christ has delivered the unchanging faith to the Apostles and through them, to us.
There is no development of doctrine. Perhaps there is a restatement or clarification, like that issued with the Nicene Creed, but there has never been this dogmatic development ad nauseum as we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church.

Even though we may argue about Toll Houses, it is not the end of the world. There are no infallibility issues either. Some people are just being prideful either way. The Toll House teaching is only a theologumenon revealed in dreams (private revelations): one may choose to believe or not. We do not really know what awaits us on the other side, but we do know that we must repent in this life, and that God has given us all the graces we need, if we would just cooperate with Him.

However, if you have visited OBOB, you will notice that there is a lot of argumentation going on. Even though Catholic Popes have declared a lot of things infallible, like Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption (Dormition) of the Theotokos, there are other Catholic doctrines that supposedly have the "air of Papal Infallibility" because of the way that they are worded. Such is the case of birth control and contraceptive use. Here the liberal "theologians" declare with infallibility that the correct words were not used and hence, Catholics may practice birth control, contraception, and even abortion. However, the conservative "theologians," and even the Pope himself, declare with "infallibility" that the correct words were used in the Papal Encyclical HV to meet the test of papal infallibility and that contraception, birth control, and abortion are mortal sins.

One more fact: ROMAN Catholics define any theologian as a person who has a Ph.D. in Theology. So, almost all the Bishops in the Catholic church have that Ph.D. and are hence Theologians. In addition, by their ordination, Bishops are Theologians or Preachers.

On the other hand, BYZANTINE and Eastern "orthodox" Catholics and Orthodox Christians define a theologian as one who prays. Hence, a layman or monk without any college degrees could be a theologian, and even a Bishop with a Ph.D. may not be a theologian because he does not pray.

Scott, please rethink this whole thing.

Visit OBOB and see all the disputes that go on between the liberal and conservative factions of the RCC. The liberal Catholics accuse the devout Catholics (those Catholics who want to be saints) of being "holier than the Pope." That is plain sick. Since when is sanctity wrong? We should be encouraging others to be saintly, not discouraging it. Aren't we all called to be saints?

 

[buzuxi02]

I get that the orthodox do not believe that we inherit Adam's guilt for his sin, but we do get the effects of it. What is the measurable difference in that position versus the Catholic one, where we are guilty as well?.

One of the areas is in the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In Orthodox Understanding this teaching is wholly unneccesary as there is no stain to be cleansed from at the very moment of conception. We inherit the fruits of original sin which is death, laboring in work to survive, increased birth pangs for women (in our hymns Mary was spared of this curse of old not because she was sinless but because Christ was), aging, disease etc, etc. These 'fruits' have been passed onto us from our ancestors fall but are distinct from their guilt.


To grasp the subtle difference there is a vatican document entitled, 'The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die without Baptism". This is the document which lead the pope to strike down Limbo from western theology. Much of the RC teaching on this subject originates from the 'seeds' planted by St .Augustine in his arguments against Pelagius. The decree on banning limbo will have ramifications for explaining doctrinal development. In the future the RC position on original will take a sharp tangent from the traditional understanding of the past 1500 years.

Getting back to the question of the OP, the document touches upon why this issue of unbaptised infants never created a controversy among the eastern greek Fathers:

..."Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as a consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they can be restored by a process of deification made possibe through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt- common in western tradition-was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free personal act."

(Just google the article name, the document is on the official vatican website)

 

[Crandaddy]

One of the areas is in the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In Orthodox Understanding this teaching is wholly unneccesary as there is no stain to be cleansed from at the very moment of conception. We inherit the fruits of original sin which is death, laboring in work to survive, increased birth pangs for women (in our hymns Mary was spared of this curse of old not because she was sinless but because Christ was), aging, disease etc, etc. These 'fruits' have been passed onto us from our ancestors fall but are distinct from their guilt.


To grasp the subtle difference there is a vatican document entitled, 'The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die without Baptism". This is the document which lead the pope to strike down Limbo from western theology. Much of the RC teaching on this subject originates from the 'seeds' planted by St .Augustine in his arguments against Pelagius. The decree on banning limbo will have ramifications for explaining doctrinal development. In the future the RC position on original will take a sharp tangent from the traditional understanding of the past 1500 years.

Getting back to the question of the OP, the document touches upon why this issue of unbaptised infants never created a controversy among the eastern greek Fathers:

..."Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as a consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they can be restored by a process of deification made possibe through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt- common in western tradition-was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free personal act."

(Just google the article name, the document is on the official vatican website)

But baptism doesn't exempt one from the consequences of Adam's sin (i.e. physical death, etc.).

I was under the impression that Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration. If so, then even if you can't delineate specific differences between a baptized person and an unbaptized person, surely you must say that there is some difference, even if left unspecified. Otherwise, how could there be regeneration? And wouldn't even Mary need to have this regeneration?

I'm actually warming up to the Immaculate Conception idea. It seems to provide a nice, neat, non-heretical (as far as I can see) explanation of how Mary received the same grace that we receive in the sacrament of baptism.

 

[buzuxi02]

But baptism doesn't exempt one from the consequences of Adam's sin (i.e. physical death, etc.).

I was under the impression that Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration. If so, then even if you can't delineate specific differences between a baptized person and an unbaptized person, surely you must say that there is some difference, even if left unspecified. Otherwise, how could there be regeneration? And wouldn't even Mary need to have this regeneration?

I'm actually warming up to the Immaculate Conception idea. It seems to provide a nice, neat, non-heretical (as far as I can see) explanation of how Mary received the same grace that we receive in the sacrament of baptism.

I'm not under the impression that the papal dogma of the IC is conveying what you say. The dogma states due to the merits of Jesus Christ she was preserved of all taint from original sin. Meaning she was in the same state as Adam before the fall, yet she died a natural death.

Not neccesary to make pronouncements on mechanisms of when or how . Why pre-emptively dogmatize something no one ever thought urgent to ask in the first place. We know she was of a holy lineage (St John of Damascus wouldnt of taught that she was descended from generations of a holy lineage if he was aware of the IC), that the Theotokos was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and concieved the Logos and then she recieved the Holy Spirit a second time when she was baptised by fire on Pentecost in the upper room.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm actually warming up to the Immaculate Conception idea. It seems to provide a nice, neat, non-heretical (as far as I can see) explanation of how Mary received the same grace that we receive in the sacrament of baptism.

yeah, but the Immaculate Conception was the grace that made her sinless. I wonder why if God could give her that special grace, why not give it to all mankind?

 

[RKO]

"since in their view sin could only be a free personal act."

Wow. That's from the original article from the Vatican? Makes me wonder how it could be otherwise...
Unless they're talking about leading others to sin by temptation or whatever other means there may be. But it seems to me that the temptor has committed a separate sin, that of temptation. And these things that lead others to sin are all over the place...I'm not sure how one could sin outside of a 'free personal act."

 

[RKO]

One more question: isn't it possible that the consequences of original Sin as described in the catholic Church would interfere with God's limitless mercy? if not, why would theologians even worry about what happens to unbaptized babies?

 

[ArmyMatt]

One more question: isn't it possible that the consequences of original Sin as described in the catholic Church would interfere with God's limitless mercy? if not, why would theologians even worry about what happens to unbaptized babies?

I dunno. I am sure there is an answer for it. but it does, at least on the surface level kinda tie God's hands. because how is an unbaptized baby beyond saving because of something Adam did?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I appreciate the kind thoughts, prayers, and concerns, Maria. I do have a lot of love for the Catholic Church of my childhood, despite its many many flaws. It's tough being Catholic or Orthodox. Neither is easy.

But in the end, despite some struggling and some stress about being Orthodox, I'm hanging in there. Yesterday I went to church with my wife and kids, had a lovely liturgy, and the Lord asked me to be in the Christmas nativity play as a guitarist. A couple of parishoners asked me to play guitar and my priest is happy that I'm doing it. So I think God is reaching out to me there and I do love the liturgy, the people, the overall theology, and richness of my Orthodox faith. I'm not going anywhere, just going through a spiritual funk....under attack from Old Nick, but hanging in there through GOD'S GRACE, not my own. Without God, I'm nothing....nothing.

No worries, but thanks for the prayers. I'm here to stay (I can hear Rus sighing....). I love Orthodoxy and the day my wife, children, and I were chrismated was a life-changing, blessed event that I still think about on a daily basis (no kidding).

In Orthodoxy, we believe that Christ has delivered the unchanging faith to the Apostles and through them, to us.
There is no development of doctrine. Perhaps there is a restatement or clarification, like that issued with the Nicene Creed, but there has never been this dogmatic development ad nauseum as we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church.

Even though we may argue about Toll Houses, it is not the end of the world. There are no infallibility issues either. Some people are just being prideful either way. The Toll House teaching is only a theologumenon revealed in dreams (private revelations): one may choose to believe or not. We do not really know what awaits us on the other side, but we do know that we must repent in this life, and that God has given us all the graces we need, if we would just cooperate with Him.

However, if you have visited OBOB, you will notice that there is a lot of argumentation going on. Even though Catholic Popes have declared a lot of things infallible, like Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption (Dormition) of the Theotokos, there are other Catholic doctrines that supposedly have the "air of Papal Infallibility" because of the way that they are worded. Such is the case of birth control and contraceptive use. Here the liberal "theologians" declare with infallibility that the correct words were not used and hence, Catholics may practice birth control, contraception, and even abortion. However, the conservative "theologians," and even the Pope himself, declare with "infallibility" that the correct words were used in the Papal Encyclical HV to meet the test of papal infallibility and that contraception, birth control, and abortion are mortal sins.

One more fact: ROMAN Catholics define any theologian as a person who has a Ph.D. in Theology. So, almost all the Bishops in the Catholic church have that Ph.D. and are hence Theologians. In addition, by their ordination, Bishops are Theologians or Preachers.

On the other hand, BYZANTINE and Eastern "orthodox" Catholics and Orthodox Christians define a theologian as one who prays. Hence, a layman or monk without any college degrees could be a theologian, and even a Bishop with a Ph.D. may not be a theologian because he does not pray.

Scott, please rethink this whole thing.

Visit OBOB and see all the disputes that go on between the liberal and conservative factions of the RCC. The liberal Catholics accuse the devout Catholics (those Catholics who want to be saints) of being "holier than the Pope." That is plain sick. Since when is sanctity wrong? We should be encouraging others to be saintly, not discouraging it. Aren't we all called to be saints?

 

[truthseeker32]

yeah, but the Immaculate Conception was the grace that made her sinless. I wonder why if God could give her that special grace, why not give it to all mankind?

We can ask "why? why? why?" questions all day? Why doesn't God give each new human individually the chance to choose him instead of fall like Adam did? Why does God alleviate the suffering of some, but not others? In the end there remains the mystery.

As for the IC, I have heard it said that Mary is a symbol of what God's redemptive sacrifice brings to pass.

 

[Crandaddy]

I'm not under the impression that the papal dogma of the IC is conveying what you say. The dogma states due to the merits of Jesus Christ she was preserved of all taint from original sin. Meaning she was in the same state as Adam before the fall, yet she died a natural death.

Correct. But my point is that even the Most Holy Theotokos needed to have the same sanctifying grace that we receive at baptism. Whether she was exempt from contracting the stain of original sin to begin with or required regeneration after her conception, without an act of Divine grace, she would still have been subject to the corruption of Adam's fall.

But what most concerns me is that you appear to be saying that we could, in principle, pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and make it to heaven on our own, given that you seem to be denying that original sin has any affect on us besides physical consequences. Thus, your position seems perilously close to Pelagianism.

Not neccesary to make pronouncements on mechanisms of when or how . Why pre-emptively dogmatize something no one ever thought urgent to ask in the first place. We know she was of a holy lineage (St John of Damascus wouldnt of taught that she was descended from generations of a holy lineage if he was aware of the IC), that the Theotokos was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and concieved the Logos and then she recieved the Holy Spirit a second time when she was baptised by fire on Pentecost in the upper room.

So was it when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit that she received regenerative sanctifying grace? If we have to have it, then so does she, her holy lineage notwithstanding. Otherwise, she doesn't share in the same human nature that we do, and that has dire soteriological consequences.

yeah, but the Immaculate Conception was the grace that made her sinless. I wonder why if God could give her that special grace, why not give it to all mankind?

Well, Matt, my answer to you is similar to truthseeker32's. That's just how God decides to do it. I'm not sure if I could offer a more satisfactory answer than that.

One more question: isn't it possible that the consequences of original Sin as described in the catholic Church would interfere with God's limitless mercy? if not, why would theologians even worry about what happens to unbaptized babies?

Well, why worry about baptism at all? What does it do? Is it just the priest pouring water over a person's head while reciting the baptismal formula, and that's it? Does sanctifying Divine grace not come along with it? If it does, then what theologian would not worry about it?

 

[buzuxi02]

Correct. But my point is that even the Most Holy Theotokos needed to have the same sanctifying grace that we receive at baptism. Whether she was exempt from contracting the stain of original sin to begin with or required regeneration after her conception, without an act of Divine grace, she would still have been subject to the corruption of Adam's fall.

But what most concerns me is that you appear to be saying that we could, in principle, pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and make it to heaven on our own, given that you seem to be denying that original sin has any affect on us besides physical consequences. Thus, your position seems perilously close to Pelagianism.

So was it when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit that she received regenerative sanctifying grace? If we have to have it, then so does she, her holy lineage notwithstanding. Otherwise, she doesn't share in the same human nature that we do, and that has dire soteriological consequences.

OK, I understand what you mean. Yes the mystery of baptism is a vehicle of salvific grace.

According to the Matinal Canon of the Service Feast of the Annunciation, the Theotokos was purified and sanctified in body and soul when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Even more specifically the Theotokos had to accept (of her free will) her role of conceiving the Logos by accepting the archangel Gabriel's message.

This Orthodox service is a cause of problem within the RC church as well; the IC dogma may fit well within the Latin rite but its contradicted by the teachings found in the Annunciation service of their byzantine rite.

 

[buzuxi02]

One more question: isn't it possible that the consequences of original Sin as described in the catholic Church would interfere with God's limitless mercy? if not, why would theologians even worry about what happens to unbaptized babies?

Its actually difficult to say what exactly is the RC church's view on original sin in the grand scheme of things since in RC belief doctrine develops over time.
That time was Vatican 2, the RC had departed from previous councils and now God's mercy extends to all. In the middle ages the RC (Ecumenical) councils were adamant in their insistence that salvation is only found in the RC church and baptism is the only vehicle which can free you from 'the grasp of the devil.'

Because of Vatican 2 and the recent pronouncement for theologians to discard Limbo there is a radical pendulum turn, which will steer the conversation away from where it was in the past 1500 years.

The reason many believe that Orthodox and RC have the same belief in original sin, that it is only semantics is because the given basic bare bones casual explanation has been similar. The RC explanation has also been gradually narrowing to the Orthodox understanding even before vat2. In times past there was a different mentality in approach to this subject between east and west.
St Gregory of Nyssa tried to answer the question of what happens to unbaptised infants, to no avail. He wrote a treatise on it and yet reached no conclusion. Most of the eastern Fathers from that point on did not want to touch the question, prefering to let it remain a mystery. The west on the other hand ran with the ball from the arguments developed during the anti pellagian controversies.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We can ask "why? why? why?" questions all day? Why doesn't God give each new human individually the chance to choose him instead of fall like Adam did? Why does God alleviate the suffering of some, but not others? In the end there remains the mystery.

As for the IC, I have heard it said that Mary is a symbol of what God's redemptive sacrifice brings to pass.

oh I know we can ask all day long, there are other reasons I don't like the idea of the IC (haha, obviously) twas just food for thought.

 

[Crandaddy]

OK, I understand what you mean. Yes the mystery of baptism is a vehicle of salvific grace.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you for clarifying. I agree, btw.

According to the Matinal Canon of the Service Feast of the Annunciation, the Theotokos was purified and sanctified in body and soul when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Even more specifically the Theotokos had to accept (of her free will) her role of conceiving the Logos by accepting the archangel Gabriel's message.

This is also congruent with what I thought Orthodox believe. Again, thank you for clarifying.

This Orthodox service is a cause of problem within the RC church as well; the IC dogma may fit well within the Latin rite but its contradicted by the teachings found in the Annunciation service of their byzantine rite.

Yes, I see how this might present a problem. For the record, I'm not absolutely committed to IC. I'm still considering it.

 

[Meowzltov]

I get that the orthodox do not believe that we inherit Adam's guilt for his sin, but we do get the effects of it. What is the measurable difference in that position versus the Catholic one, where we are guilty as well?

On another forum, CA, it has been suggested that the difference is purely semantics...I doubt that.

So let me see if I understand this...
EO's believe that Original Sin has effects on us like it makes us more prone to sin, and we need God's help. IOW EO's are not Pelagianists.
BUT you do NOT believe that Original Sin carries a guilt stain from generation to generation like Catholics do.
Please do correct me if I in any way have this wrong, as I'm trying very hard to get the nuances right.

 

[ArmyMatt]

EO's believe that Original Sin has effects on us like it makes us more prone to sin, and we need God's help. IOW EO's are not Pelagianists.

and mortality and corruptibility as well

BUT you do NOT believe that Original Sin carries a guilt stain from generation to generation like Catholics do.

right, we are only guilty of our own sins