Open main menu

OrthodoxWiki β

Changes

Original sin

7,673 bytes added, 03:52, June 22, 2020
→‎Discussion
{{expert}}{{stub}}{{cleanup}}
==Orthodox Interpretations==The term '''Original Sin'''original (or "''first") sin''' was committed ) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 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 fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the [[AdamOrthodoxy|Orthodox Church]] and the term '''[[Eveancestral sin]] ''' (see Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through [[Book of Genesisbaptism]] Chapter 3). St. [[OrthodoxyGregory Palamas]] believes taught thatman's image was tarnished, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sindisfigured, the foremost as a consequence of which is physical death (in this world), ''only'Adam' Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see [[Book of Ezekiel]] Chapter 18)s disobedience.
==Discussion==In contrast to Jewish exegesis the [[Book of Genesis]], Christianity has Chapter 3, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] committed a Christological readingsin, the ''original sin''. We understand The [[Orthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox]] Church teaches that no one is guilty for the depth actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the Fall 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 light implications of redemptionthis sin' (which is human death) and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. It While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in the contrast writings of St [[Augustine of Hippo]] -- this is the old "evil impulse" of Judaism, and new Adams in Orthodoxy, we might say this is our "disordered passion." It isn't only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we understand what are born with disordered passion within us. Orthodoxy would not describe the significance human state as one of original sin has been"total depravity."
Mortality is certainly a result of Orthodox Christians have usually understood [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the Fallconsequence, but along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" 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 two [[Church]]es in Augustinetheir understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's writings -- this declaration of its [[dogma]] of the [[Immaculate Conception]] in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the "evil impulse" of JudaismOrthodox Church. However, and contemporary [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated in Orthodoxythe ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', we might say which includes this is our sentence: "disordered passion" -- it isnoriginal sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam't only that we are born in death, or in s descendants. It is a state deprivation of distance from Godoriginal holiness and justice, but also that we are born with disordered passion within ushuman nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405).
Orthodoxy would not describe In 2007, the human state as one Vatican approved a document called, ''The Hope of "total depravity" (Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized'', see [[Cyril Lucaris]] however)link below under Sources and further reading. One writer has said that "if Latin babies are born blind, This document is actually very helpful both in tracing the history of the doctrine of Original Sin within the Roman Catholic Church and Pelagian babies are born in reading a reasonable summary of the teaching of the Greek Fathers. While the document deals with 20/20 visioninfants, then Greek babies are born nevertheless it must incorporate a doctrine and definition of Ancestral or Original Sin in need order to talk about the salvation of spectacles" (ref?)infants.Among the helpful comments in the document are:
==Roman Catholic Teaching==<strike>[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] teaches that everyone bears not only "Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the consequence, but also destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the guiltEast. Furthermore, they had a different view of that sin. This difference between the two [[Church]]es in their understanding present condition of humanity. For the original sin was one of Greek Fathers, as the doctrinal reasons that led the Catholic Church to devise their dogma consequence of the Adam'[[Immaculate Conception]]' in the 19th centurys sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a dogma that is completely rejected by process of deification made possible through the Orthodox Churchredemptive work of Christ.</strike>(If The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this is historic RC teachingperspective, it needs to since in their view sin could only be documented -- quotes from Romanides are not sufficient here. Certainly it is not the teaching todaya free, see the CCCpersonal act. 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)"
For decades"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 appears in the questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, 'something much greater than the human mind can grasp'. He expresses his opinion in relation to virtue and its reward; in his view, 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 life prematurely without having practiced virtue are immediately welcomed into blessedness. Continuing along this line, Gregory asks: 'What will happen to the one who finishes his life at leasta tender age, Orthodox teaching who has often done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of a reward?' He answers: 'The hoped-for blessedness belongs to human beings by nature, and it is called a reward only in a certain sense'. 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 sort of regular progress, according to his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that 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 contrasted purified in this life by all the virtues'. Finally, he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Church: 'Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, for the One who has done everything well, with wisdom (Psalm 104: 24), is able to traditional Roman Catholic bring good out of evil'. . . . The profound teaching on original sinof 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'. . . . "
Modern [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated "The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the Catechism West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the Catholic Churchearly 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, which includes this sentence: ""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 does not on their souls; even infants who have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendantsnever sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . . It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (see Talk page for details).
The Roman Catholic Church has defined its "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 the vision of God. . . ." "Because children below the age of original 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 Ancestral or Original Sin. In Saint Gregory of Orange]] 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 529order 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 hell 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)
==Sources and further reading==
* [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized]
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/34424 The Original Sin/Consequences of the Original Fall - by HG Bishop Kallistos Ware]
* [http://romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL - by the late V. Rev. Fr. John S. Romanides]
* [http://pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/ Original Sin] by Fr Alvin Kimel
* [http://www.amazon.com/First-Created-Man-Homilies-Symeon-Theologian/dp/0938635115 The First-Created Man: Seven Homilies by St. Symeon the New Theologian], trans. Seraphim Rose [ISBN:0938635115]
 ===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]
==See also==
Sdoelman
844
edits
Retrieved from "https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Special:MobileDiff/57770...128501"