{{expert}}{{stubcleanup}}The '''original (or "first") sin''' was committed by [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] (see [[Book of Genesis]] Chapter 3). [[Orthodoxy]] believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is physical death (in this world), ''only'' Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see [[Book of Ezekiel]] Chapter 18).

In contrast The term '''Original Sin''' (or ''first sin'') is used among all Christian churches to Jewish exegesis of Genesisdefine the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, Christianity has in which Adam is identified as the man through whom death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a Christological readingfundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. We understand In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the depth explanation of what happened in the Fall in . In the [[Orthodoxy|Orthodox Church]] the light of redemptionterm '''[[ancestral sin]]''' (Gr. It προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is in used to define the contrast doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the old sin of our progenitors" and new Adams that we understand what the significance this is removed through [[baptism]]. St. [[Gregory Palamas]] taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of original sin has beenAdam's disobedience.

Mortality ==Discussion==In the [[Book of Genesis]], Chapter 3, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] committed a sin, the ''original sin''. The [[Orthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox]] Church teaches that no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world. This is the reason why the original fathers of the Church over the centuries have preferred the term '''ancestral sin'''. The consequences and penalties of this ancestral act are transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human is a descendant of Adam then 'no one is free from the implications of this sin' (which is human death) and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, but along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in the writings of St [[Augustine's writings of Hippo]] -- this is the "evil impulse" of Judaism, and in Orthodoxy, we might say this is our "disordered passion." -- it It isn't only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us.Orthodoxy would not describe the human state as one of "total depravity."

Orthodoxy would Orthodox Christians have usually understood [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not describe only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the [[w:Councils of Orange|Council of Orange]] in 529. This difference between the human state as two [[Church]]es in their understanding of the original sin was one of "total depravity" (see the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's declaration of its [[dogma]] of the [[Cyril LucarisImmaculate Conception]] however)in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. One writer has said that "if Latin babies are born blindHowever, and Pelagian babies are born with 20/20 visioncontemporary [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated in the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', then Greek babies are born which includes this sentence: ""original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in need any of spectaclesAdam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (ref?§405).

==Roman Catholic Teaching==<strike>[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] teaches that everyone bears not only the consequenceIn 2007, but also the guiltVatican approved a document called, ''The Hope of that sinSalvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized'', see link below under Sources and further reading. This difference between document is actually very helpful both in tracing the two [[Church]]es in their understanding history of the original sin was one doctrine of Original Sin within the doctrinal reasons that led the Roman Catholic Church to devise their dogma and in reading a reasonable summary of the '[[Immaculate Conception]]' in teaching of the 19th century, a dogma that is completely rejected by Greek Fathers. While the Orthodox Church.</strike>(If this is historic RC teachingdocument deals with infants, nevertheless it needs must incorporate a doctrine and definition of Ancestral or Original Sin in order to be documented -- quotes from Romanides are not sufficient heretalk about the salvation of infants. Certainly it is not Among the teaching today, see helpful comments in the CCC. Modern Orthodox polemics can be traced back to Fr. John Meyendorff (?)... earlier explanations tended to have a scholastic tone, both in Russia and in Greece)document are:

"Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For decadesthe Greek Fathers, at leastas the consequence of Adam's sin, Orthodox teaching has often been contrasted human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to traditional Roman Catholic teaching on original this perspective, since in their view sincould only be a free, personal act. . . "

Modern [[Roman Catholic "Alone among the Greek Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa wrote a work specifically on the destiny of infants who die, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum. The anguish of the Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated appears in the Catechism questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, 'something much greater than the Catholic Churchhuman mind can grasp'. He expresses his opinion in relation to virtue and its reward; in his view, which includes there is no reason for God to grant what is hoped for as a reward. Virtue is not worth anything if those who depart this sentencelife prematurely without having practiced virtue are immediately welcomed into blessedness. Continuing along this line, Gregory asks: ""original sin does not have 'What will happen to the character one who finishes his life at a tender age, who has done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of a personal fault reward?' He answers: 'The hoped-for blessedness belongs to human beings by nature, and it is called a reward only in any of Adama certain sense's descendants. It Enjoyment of true life (zoe and not bios) corresponds to human nature, and is possessed in the degree that virtue is practiced. Since the innocent infant does not need purification from personal sins, he shares in this life corresponding to his nature in a deprivation sort of original holiness regular progress, according to his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and justicethat of adults who lived a virtuous life. 'The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues'. Finally, he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Church: 'Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, but human nature for the One who has not been totally corrupted" done everything well, with wisdom (see Talk page for detailsPsalm 104: 24), is able to bring good out of evil'. . . .The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: 'It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands'. . . ."

"The Roman Catholic Church has defined its fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . ." "But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine's “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching , which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of original the vision of God. . . ." "Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin , theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in multiple councilsall natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). The first contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of these the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . ." As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a [[w:Councils swing back towards Saint Augustine's opinion on the 16th century such that it again began to be stated that unbaptized babies go to hell, though only with the mildest of Orange|punishments. By Vatican Council I, opinion has begun to switch away from this hardened a view towards "natural happiness." By the 20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive "Christ's full salvation." This actually appears to be a partial return towards the Pelagian doctrine that Saint Augustine so hated. As one reads the document, one can see that the Eastern and Western Fathers shared the idea that baptism was a necessity for salvation. However, all the Church Fathers had to deal with the problem of the unbaptized infant, whether of Christian or non-Christian parents, and in dealing with that they let us see their understanding of Orange]] Ancestral or Original Sin. In Saint Gregory of Nyssa, one can see what becomes the Eastern thought on Ancestral or Original Sin. On the one hand, the infant needs no cleansing for personal sins and is thus not to be thought of as one who will be sent to punishment. On the other hand, neither has the infant either received baptism or tried to live a virtuous life, so the infant does not merit heaven. Yet God is able to bring good out of evil. Thus, it is clear in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that Ancestral or Original Sin contains no imputation of personal guilt, but rather a certain damage to the likeness of God, a damage so widespread and deep-seated that one must labor and rely on the overflowing grace of God and the Mysteries in order to begin to conquer the damage inherited from Adam and Eve. The Roman Catholic doctrine of Ancestral or Original Sin is harder to pin down because of the development and pendulum swings of its development. It is clear from the Vatican's own documents that Ancestral or Original Sin did include both the imputation of the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin and a widespread and deep-seated damage to the imagio dei, at least during a good part of its history. Thus the infant is worthy of punishment in 529hell according to both Saint Augustine and St. Gregory the Dialogist. In the medievalists, this is ameliorated to a deprivation of the beatific vision, which expanded upon is still considered a punishment, though the infant will only experience happiness. At the time of the Enlightenment, there is a return to a more Augustinian and Gregorian definition of Ancestral or Original Sin. But, by the time of Vatican Council I, the change is in full swing, and Ancestral or Original Sin begins to be seen as the [[w:Augustine deprivation of Hippo#Doctrine original holiness. This change in the definition of Ancestral or Original Sin|teachings]] is found in documents such as the aforecited Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Hope of Salvation document. --[[Augustine of HippoUser:Orthocuban|Orthocuban]]20:26, whose interpretation of "all dying in Adam" March 4, 2010 (UTC)

 ===From Ephrem Hugh Bensusan's [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com Razilaženje]===* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html Original Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Confessions and Catechisms]* [http://razilazenjewww.blogspotstmaryorthodoxchurch.comorg/2006orthodoxy/12articles/ancestral-vs2004-originalhughes-sin-false.html php Ancestral vs. Versus Original Sin: A False Dichotomy]* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-sin-quotations-from-orthodox.html Ancestral Sin - Quotations From Orthodox Holy Fathers and Contemporary Authors]* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/fr-george-mastrantonis-on-ancestral-sin.html Fr. George Mastrantonis on Ancestral SinAn Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy], excerpted from ''A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults'' by FrV. George Mastrantonis (StRev. Louis, MO: The OLOGOS MissionAntony Hughes, 1969 [1977])M.* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2007/01/original-sin-west-haters-strike-backDiv.html Original Sin: The West-Haters Strike Back]