What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox definition of Original Sin, and the Catholic definition?
I think the salient difference is that Orthodox do not affirm with us that “all men are implicated in Adam’s sin” (CCC 402). Whether Orthodox believe in habitual grace as such, or the privation thereof, someone else can say.
The Latin Church has used two terms associated with guilt:
*]reatus culpae - personal guilt, the actual sin of Adam and Eve
*]reatus poenae - the inherited consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve by those with no personal guilt. Only the consequence of lack of sanctifying grace at birth (for which we must be baptized) is known as the stain of original sin. There are other consequences besides the stain of original sin.
Orthodox do not use these Latin terms, but do share with the west that there is personal guilt of Adam and Eve, and consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve. All must be baptized for justification.
St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57) “You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
Baptismal Instruction 12:6:“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justification, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”
Orthodox actually reject the idea that humanity has inherited the personal guilt of Adam and Eve.
This link also has a pretty brief explanation for the matter: oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin
Catholic and Orthodox reject the idea that humanity has inherited the personal guilt of Adam and Eve. CCC 404 - “original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”
Doesn’t CCC 404 contradict the Biblical teaching that we are not held accountable for the acts of others? Compare CCC 404 to 2 Kings 14:6.
CCC 404 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”.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.*** 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.
2 Kings 14:6 (KJV) But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
That is the law of man’s tribunal. Sin entered the world through death. Now we must be justified by sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace dispels from the soul both original (contracted) sin and mortal (personal) sin.
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The teaching of the Catholic Church (Vatican II Gaudium et Spes) is that we are culpable for not obeying our consciences.Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (GS 19).
I don’t believe the article I posted nor my own statements indicate otherwise. I’m just pointing out the fact that the Latin concept of original sin is less precise than should be desired. The result of which is that it leaves itself open to some pretty stark interpretations: predestination, etc.
A good example of this is Augustine’s 20th book in The City of God, and the following exegeses on Revelations from the following authors: Primasius of Hadrumentum, Autpertus Ambrosius, Pseudo-Alcuin, Haimo of Auxerre, Bruno of Segni,and Rupert of Deutz. The only time Latin ecclesiastics got away from that sort of understanding of original sin was Bede, Amolo of Lyons, and some renewed efforts by the scholastics.
I think the Church included the bare minimum. There was much discussion about original sin and correlated Immaculate Conception dogmas before their definition at Trent and Vatican I, respectively.
What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
The curse, and death.
165. What is the curse?
The condemnation of sin by God’s just judgment, and the evil which from sin came upon the earth for the punishment of men. God said to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17.
166. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.
167. Can the soul, then, die as well as the body?
It can die, but not so as the body. The body, when it dies, loses sense, and is dissolved; the soul, when it dies by sin, loses spiritual light, joy, and happiness, but is not dissolved nor annihilated, but remains in a state of darkness, anguish, and suffering.
168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.
169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12.
Thanks for you answers
What I find interesting is that mainline Protestant denominations, fundamentalists included, have never had a problem with the original sin.
since sin clearly exists in the world, I am interested in learning from those who believe human beings are not conceived in sin how they demonstrate and support this concept.
or, perhaps from another angle, how are people conceived in sin not affected by that? how do people escape the negative consequences of being conceived in sin? to me, all of the evidence demonstrates that everyone is negatively affected by being conceived in sin.
I suppose, I am anticipating, someone might say that just because there is sin in the world when someone is conceived that does not mean that this sin affects the person’s soul. my response would be to ask for clarification and ask for an example of a person not affected by being conceived in sin; and, further, if someone makes such a claim (the soul is not affected) how they would know that. is the knowledge from scripture? it is not from the successors to the apostles. they state the exact opposite.
so, when a person denies that all humans are conceived in sin and that as a consequence their souls are negatively affected, on what basis does he or she make that assertion?
it is very easy to object to or contest a religious doctrine. however, when someone rises to oppose a doctrine, it is completely fair to ask them to explain what they have to offer in contrast to the doctrine they are disputing and/or rejecting.
otherwise, the dissidents are basically saying, I reject what you propose and offer nothing in its place. in my mind, that is senseless self-aggrandizement.
We are all guilty of original sin in the measure that we grasp for an absolute knowledge of good and evil - a perogative that is God’s alone.
IMHO, the Old Testament offers plenty of justification to oppose the doctrine of original sin.
2 Kings 14:6 (KJV) But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 (KJV) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
We can’t escape the consequences of being born into an imperfect world, but we are not born guilty of Adam’s transgression.
I hope this helps…
The two OT verses I provided clearly are part of the abundant evidence of which Elder McConkie referred.
Is it so strange the suppose that a person is perfectly capable of turning against God on their own power, and not blaming Adam for it?
It would be odd for you to “blame Adam” when Brigham Young taught that he was the god of Earth.
Sorry to not indulge you on this aside, but I’m really not interested in defending an apostate idea.