Orthodox and Original Sin

Death makes its entrance into human history

Click to expand...

This statement is truthful, but it doesn't answer the question of from source death originates. The East teaches death is from Satan and is a perversion of the created order as God established it. The West teaches death is a juridical punishment from God because of man's disobedience.

Patristic said:

The East teaches death is from Satan and is a perversion of the created order as God established it. The West teaches death is a juridical punishment from God because of man's disobedience.

Click to expand...

Hi Patristic,
I'm sure you didn't intend to, but the wording you chose makes it sound like the West doesn't believe that Satan is the source of death, which of course is not true, atleast not in the Catholic Faith. Without Satan, of course there would have been no temptation to deny God. The Catholic Church teaches that is was thus less of a "punishment" rather than a mere consequence of Adam and Eve's free will. In this sense, the difference between the EO and RCC view regarding this could just be two sides of the same coin.

OrthodoxSeeker said:

Dear Photini (and any other who may wish to join in),

What then is the connection between original sin as the orthodox understand it and baptism?

Click to expand...

Douglas, what may really help is to learn what Orthodoxy believes about the human soul and body...but specifically the soul. I particularly have learned alot from the books by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos).

I'll look up some specifics to quote, because I often find that my own wording leaves much to be desired.

Rising_Suns said:

hi heather,

just a quick question; I understand what you are saying and I agree; that we are born with a seed for the propensity to sin. How does this differ from original sin though? couldn't original sin just be the seed that you are talking about, which originated from the fall?


EDIT: don't mind me. just always trying to bridge the gap between our Church's

Click to expand...

As I said to Douglas, I believe that the difference may rest in how we understand the make-up and action of the soul and body. I tend to believe, that no one has a better developed understanding and knowledge of the human soul than the Orthodox Church...except of course, our Creator.

Rising_Suns said:

Thus, "sinful nature" from a Catholic standpoint (although that term is never used or defined in the CCC) is most likely refering to the inherent good in mankind with our propesity to sin through the fall. we lean to sin, and this life is merely our journey back to full union with God like it was before the fall.

Click to expand...

That seems pretty close to the Orthodox position as I understand it.

www.pelagia.org

[bolding is mine.]

We usually think of the fall in juridical terms, in meaning which have been taken from the law courts. We consider that Adam's sin was simply a transgression of a law, an external one, and that this transgression created great guilt in man, with the result that this guilt has been inherited in Adam's descendants.

But this view of sin is not orthodox. In Orthodoxy we regard sin as an illness of man. Man fell ill and this illness had an effect on the whole human race. St. Kyril of Alexandria uses the image of the plant. When the root of the plant has become ill, then the branches also fall ill. We can interpret Adam's sin in this way as well.

St. Maximos, speaking of the fall of man and his restoration, puts them on a theological basis. He says that at the creation of the world and of man there were five divisions. The division between uncreated and created, noetic and tangible, Heaven and earth, Paradise and world, male and female. Adam, by the grace of God, but also by his personal struggle, an expression of his freedom, would have to overcome these divisions and reach communion and unity with the uncreated. To be sure, this last division, that between created and uncreated, could not be abolished, but the created would attain unity with the uncreated. Moreover, in the Church we say that there is no division between physical and metaphysical things, as philosophy claimed, but between created and uncreated. And further, we accept that the uncreated enters into the created, and thus man himself, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, also becomes uncreated by grace. Adam failed to transcend these divisions. And not only did he fail to transcend the division which we mentioned, but he also lost the purity which existed between the two sexes, with the result that decay and mortality entered into nature, that he wore the coats of skin of decay and mortality. Therefore now man's way of conception, gestation, birth, etc. , is a result of the fall, it is what the Fathers called coats of skin, which he wore after the fall.

The transcending of the five divisions took place in Christ. By His incarnation, by His birth from a Virgin, by the union of divine and human nature, he united the uncreated with the created, the heavenly with the earth, the noetic with the sensible, Paradise with the world, and he even transcended the division between male and female. Thus man's restoration was successful and every person was given the possibility that in Christ he too could transcend all the divisions and achieve his salvation.

If we want to look more concretely at the matter of the fall we will say that, as St. John of Damaskos teaches, the fall in reality is darkness of the image, loss of the divine life and putting on the coats of skin. The darkness of the image is nothing else but the darkening of the nous. The nous was darkened and could not have communion and unity with God. Of course it must be said that according to the anthropology of the Fathers, man's soul is rational and noetic. This means that man has two centres of functioning. One is the reasoning mind, which is connected with his nervous system, and the other his nous, which is connected with his heart. Adam's fall, then, is the darkening of his nous, the loss of its noetic function, confusion of the nous with the functions of reason and its enslavement to the passions and to the environment. Instead of moving according to nature and above nature, instead of moving towards God and being mindful of God, man's nous is turned towards the created things and the passions. That is why in the Church we speak of repentance, which is not simply a change in the head, as some theologians say, but a change of the nous. The nous must break away from the created and the passions and turn towards God.

A result of the darkening of his noetic energy is that man's relationship with God and his fellow man is upset. Because of his darkened nous, man does not find meaning in life, he turns his attention to the external things, with the result that he comes to blows with men, he has no inner peace. This is analysed in a wonderful way by St. Gregory Palamas. Fallen man uses God to safeguard his individual security and regards his neighbour as an object for predatory exploitation. He cannot have selfless love, because all his expressions and all his love contain the element of self-seeking, which is to say that man is characterised by self-seeking love. So the darkening of the nous has drastic social consequences. Sociology cannot be regarded as independent of theology.

In this sense we can speak of inheritance of sin and of the ancestral sin, which man inherits at birth. In this sense too we can speak of the catholicity of the fall of man.

What Adam failed to do, Christ, who is called the new Adam, succeeded in doing. By His incarnation Christ deified human nature and became the strongest medicine for men, in the sense that He gave every man the possibility of achieving his deification. In this light we can interpret the phrase from the troparion that Christ raised up "Adam with the whole human race".

At this point I would like to look at two passages in St. John of Damaskos which will help us to understand in some way the mystery of the incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It must of course be emphasised that this too is a subject not of rational understanding but of spiritual experience, yet we can say something about the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son and Word of God.

St. John of Damaskos, repeating a passage from St. Gregory the Theologian whom he calls his spiritual father, says that Christ took on the whole human nature, because what is not assumed is not cured. St. John of Damaskos goes on to say that the ruling centre of the soul and the flesh is the nous, which is the purest part of the soul, but also that the ruling centre of the nous is God Himself. When God acts, then the nous manifests its own authority, and then "it is under the control of the stronger and follows it, doing those things which the divine will desires". The Son and Word of God has united with the flesh "by means of the nous", which is midway between the purity of God and the grossness of the flesh. So the nous became the place of its personal union with divinity. The saint writes characteristically: "The nous becomes the seat of the Divinity which has been hypostatically united to it". This has great importance, because it shows that man's salvation begins and works in the nous and then extends to the whole body. Thus we understand the great importance of the neptic tradition of our Church.

The other point from the teaching of St. John of Damaskos which is useful to us here is that by His incarnation the Word of God did not assume the human nature "that is understood in pure theory", that is to say, he did not assume a simple nature, that which is seen externally, because then it would not have been incarnation, but an illusion and fiction of incarnation. Also He did not assume this nature "regarded as a species", but that which is seen in the individual, which at the same time belongs also to the species, because Christ assumed the whole mixture of what was our own from the beginning. This is important because, as St. John of Damaskos again says, human nature rose from the dead and sat at the right hand of the Father "not implying that all human persons arose and sat at the right hand of the Father, but that our entire nature did so in the Person of Christ". That is to say that human nature has been deified in the person of the Logos. So human nature has been deified in the hypostasis of the Logos, but our own human hypostases must be deified as well.

Therefore the catholicity of Adam's fall has the meaning of the illness of human nature and the catholicity of the resurrection through the New Adam, Christ, it again has the meaning of the cure. Christ cured human nature, He Himself became the strongest medicine towards the cure, and he gives every man the possibility of being cured. Thus we can maintain that Christ is both the physician and the medicine, man's cure and his health.

~ From the Mind of the Orthodox Church

also from www.pelagia.org Same book as previous post.



From what we have said it is seen that all men have the possibility of being deified. There are no privileged categories that can travel towards deification. The cure and deification of man is achieved, on the one hand, by the sacramental life, and on the other hand, by the ascetic life which we live in the Church. I would like to emphasise this fact particularly. All the holy Fathers teach that man's salvation is a combination of sacraments and asceticism. We cannot understand the sacraments without asceticism in Christ, and we cannot live a real ascetic life without the sacraments of the Church. Moreover, the whole life in the Church is an experience of a great mystery. Asceticism is in reality experience of the commandments of Christ which is attained by partaking in the purifying, illuminating and deifying energy of God. Insofar as anyone experiences the purifying, illuminating and deifying energy of God, he is experiencing rightly the sacramental life.

I say this because in our time a great deal is being said about the sacramental life, the eucharistiological life is being much emphasised. This is very good. But, unfortunately, the ascetic tradition of the Church is being overlooked. St. Gregory Palamas, as well as all the other Fathers, was a catholic theologian, and therefore he made a parallel struggle against the Massalians who overemphasised the hesychastic life at the expense of the sacraments, and against Barlaam, who overemphasised the sacramental life at the expense of the hesychastic life. This is essential to be emphasised.

The beginning of our experience of salvation is achieved by holy Baptism, which is also called an introductory sacrament, because it introduces us to the life of the Church, which is life in Christ at the same time. But in the early Church Baptism was preceded by purification. The exorcisms also have this meaning.

Apart from others who refer to other books on this subject, here I must emphasise that the Fathers of the Local Synod in Antioch specify that the country bishops should not ordain Priests and Deacons without the permission of the Bishop of the city, but only to appoint "Readers, Subdeacons and Exorcists". And St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, interpreting what the exorcists are, says that they are the catechists. He writes characteristically: "The name of exorcists is given to the catechists of those faithless or heretics who are coming into the faith, because in catechising them, they exorcise the evil spirits dwelling in them, in the name of the Lord, that they should leave them, and this is evident, sometimes from those sons of the Evil spirit who called the name of the Lord into the demonised, saying to the demons, we exorcise you in the name of Jesus, whom Paul proclaimed (Acts 19,12); sometimes also from the exorcisms where the Priest reads to those who are about to be baptised".

So it seems that the Catechumens go through the stage of purification and the Catechists were the exorcists who had the special blessing of the Church to do this work. Through catechesis the catechumens passed the stage of purification, when by holy Baptisms and by Chrismation they experienced the illuminating energy of God, discovered their nous, their noetic energy moved naturally and supranaturally, and for this reason Baptism is called illumination.

If we study the New Testament carefully, especially the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, we shall we convinced that really it is speaking about purification, illumination and deification. Some passages refer to the stage of purification, some to the stage of illumination and others to the stage of deification. I do not choose to make an analysis of this point here. I only wish to underline that the things said about purification, illumination and deification are not an influence from ancient Greek philosophy, but an experience of the Christians, which can be discovered also in the texts of Holy Scripture.

At all events it is a fact that all people have the possibility of attaining deification, provided that all are catechised members of the Church and then baptised and anointed and have the possibility of Holy Communion. Hence, in the Church there is one common way of life, relatively speaking, of course.

With Baptism and Chrismation a new life begins. But this life must be continued and increased. This new life is expressed and energised by three basic factors: by applying the commandments of Christ, by divine Communion and by prayer.

The commandments of Christ are mentioned at all the points on man's journey towards deification. We have been accustomed to regarding the commandments as legalistic orders, to which we must adapt our life. Without excluding even one such means of adapting, we emphasise that God's commandments are medicines to help us to be cured in our souls. St. Dionysios the Areopagite says that our union with God is achieved "only by love and holy work". And of course Christ's commandments refer to many topics, such as to the divine Liturgy. The celebration of the Divine Liturgy is an application of Christ's commandment: "this do in remembrance of me. . . ".

Still, the divine Communion leads a person to deification. Of course we must add that divine Communion deifies man when he is in this state. Otherwise it illuminates him, purifies him, while if he has not repented and has not entered the stage of purification, it burns him up, condemns him. This is why Nikolas Kavasilas, interpreting the Apostle Paul's "if someone does not want to work, let him not eat", says that this is true not only for material bread, but also for the spiritual bread. He who does not wish to work and to practise asceticism spiritually should not approach the Holy Table and receive Holy Communion.

But also prayer, especially that which is called noetic prayer, is that which expresses the new life which man attains through Baptism and helps him to increase it, because according to the teaching of the holy Fathers, there is no limit and boundary to perfection and virtue. The passage of the Apostle Paul "be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5, 18-19) refers to noetic prayer, which goes on in the heart with hymns and psalms and spiritual songs, by the energy of the Holy Spirit. The connection of prayer with the Holy Spirit and with the heart indicates the existence of noetic prayer which goes on unceasingly, and therefore we have the commandment to pray without ceasing.

An interesting distinction I learned last night, between the fall of the angels (demons) and the fall of man.

When Satan and the other angels who fell with him turned away from God, the source of their rebellion was from within, that is to say no one talked them into rebelling against God, they are completely responsible for their own fall.

Man, on the other hand, has the source of his rebellion from without, that is, he was influenced externally by the sly words of the evil one. It would not have even entered his head to disobey God if it had not been for the influence of Satan. Thus there is the possibility of redemption for Man through repentance whereas for the demons there is none.

John.

Rising_Suns said:

hi heather,

just a quick question; I understand what you are saying and I agree; that we are born with a seed for the propensity to sin. How does this differ from original sin though? couldn't original sin just be the seed that you are talking about, which originated from the fall?


EDIT: don't mind me. just always trying to bridge the gap between our Church's

Click to expand...

Dave, If you happen to stroll back into this thread....please answer me this...or PM it to me if you want. If the RCC accepts the view of OS that I just mentioned, then why is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception necessary?

Photini said:

Dave, If you happen to stroll back into this thread....please answer me this...or PM it to me if you want. If the RCC accepts the view of OS that I just mentioned, then why is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception necessary?

Click to expand...

Photini

Can I ask you this . . lets let go of the idea of Mary's immaculate conception for a moment . .

Both EO and Catholic believe that Mary was immaculate at the time of the annumciation . .


Why do the EO believe she was immaculate or needed to be immaculate at that point?


Peace in Him!

Photini

Here is that thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t91629&highlight=babies

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower said:

Why do the EO believe she was immaculate or needed to be immaculate at that point?


Peace in Him!

Click to expand...

He is holy, and finds rest in the holy.

I think this might answer the question - All Immaculate Mary.

Rilian said:

I think this might answer the question - All Immaculate Mary.

Click to expand...

Now THAT makes sense. Thank you!

Photini Do you see that we are not so far off at it seems, and as those who would like to drive wedges between the East and West would have it appear?

Friom the site linked to above

Other than our concept of Original Sin, we believe the exact same thing regarding Mary's Conception . . we just define it somewhat differently . .


Peace in Him!

I see now. Thanks again for that link Rilian.

thereselittleflower said:

Photini Do you see that we are not so far off at it seems, and as those who would like to drive wedges between the East and West would have it appear?

Click to expand...

It's not about driving a wedge between East and West. When placing the two views beside each other, I am unable to reconcile why western theologians wrapped their minds around this most pious tradition, man-handling it and distorting it into something it is not. I am unable to determine how such a pious tradition is detrimental to my salvation, that it should be defined as an article of Faith.