www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Original Sin

Dear Columcille,

Yes, it is, most surely!

There have been Orthodox theologians in history who have held to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin as well, as Meyendorff notes in his "Byzantine Theology."

Fr. McBride in his "Catholicism," notes your first observation with respect to the Immaculate Conception.

He maintains that if one holds to the Augustinian view of Original Sin, then the IC means that Our Lady was preserved free from the stain of Original Sin.

If one holds to the Orthodox view of Original Sin, then the IC means that our Lady was completely sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Spirit from her Conception in the womb of St Anne.

The first view of the IC is about "preserving free from" - the second is about "sanctifying."

Either view is acceptable.

Alex

Rest at ease

It is widely believed in the Orthodox Church that Augustine and Aquinas taught that sin was carried from man to woman in the seed (semen). That is a horrible corruption of what Augustine and Aquinas were grappling with. Some Orthodox teach that the RC teaches that - heck spme RC understand it this way to and have taught that - but it does not and never did. Sin is not a physical nor material thing that you can put it out on the table, poke it with a stick - or attach it to fluids. Agustine and Aquinas know this better than most.

The problem arises from not what Augustine or Aquinas said - it arises from people who read them and interpretate things in material ways - and just because that is the way THEY understand it - they say �This is what Augustine said!�

And the virgin birth (no human father involved� is forever mistaken for the Immaculate Conception,

Sin as �stain� - the RC is not taking about a physical stain - it is likening it to a satin on a garment (as most of the old testament prophets do also).

"What is a good way to explain the Fall of Man and it's consequence throughout history and for each one of us?"

Dear BradM;

It is not an easy task because the majority of Jews understand the tenants of Judaism as well as most Christians understand the tenants of Christianity. That is - in only the first steps� a very physical interpretation lacking a great deal of context. So your chances of chatting with some Jew about their concept of original sin and the sacrifice of Jesus - is about as much as asking a Roman Catholic what the Immaculate Conception is - the greater chance is they will get it wrong. Better stated - it is about the same chance of asking an RC what original sin is - most will get it wrong because they have not taken the time to research what their own church means by it.

As you can see above �The G-d I worship doesn't accept human sacrificies that's strictly a pagan idea.� this person has no idea what the sacrifice of Jesus was. He is equating it with pagan sacrifices. And Judaism DOES have a doctrine comparable to the RC doctrine of original sin (we did not come up with it on our own) - and the RC doctrine is a further understanding of that original Jewish belief in the effects of the first sin upon all other humans.

But do yourself a favor and do not argue with whoever that is. They know nothing of the �blessing� passed down from generation to generation (a Jewish doctrine based upon a coming freedom from the sin of Adam). That person does not know his own Judaism well. He has not proper concept of the messiah and why one need have come at all. It is hopeless.

The original sin is - self providence. But to understand that (as it is portrayed in the cosmogony of Moses) one would have to know the doctrine (Jewish and Catholic) of Providence - as being the expressed Will of God - and that Will which Jesus followed without flinching. The doctrine of Providence is also a Jewish doctrine passed down to the Catholic church. The Catholic church is a continuation (for the gentiles) of what was embodied in the Mosaic 'church'. The Catholic church is an extention of that, through Jesus Christ' to the gentile nations (those not born Jews).

You would do well to go out and understand the doctrine of Providence.

Sin (meaning missing the mark or un-reality) is not a physical thing. It has been the headache of all saints through the ages that, before we come to understand, we all think sin is a physical presence or something. Sin is the �lack of� and has no positive presence. God creates all things and all events and not once has he created anything that is sin. Sin is not �out there� it is a lack of cooperation with the Will of God - a lack of cooperation to the level at which we are called to cooperate. You can look at it as spiritual immaturity. Sin becomes habitual - just like sanctity or holiness can become habitual (the mystical marriage our Catholic religion is built upon).

----

Providence was Israel�s God - the mysterious presence enthroned upon the seat of the Ark� and Israel chose a human king instead (doing their own self-providence, again). God�s mind did not need to be �changed� in any way. The sacrifice of Jesus was not done to change God�s mind - it was done to change man�s mind and heart. Having free will - we can accept that or not. Some do and some don�t. It is a thing of grace to come to believe in Jesus - not a thing of intellectual argument.

Thank you, Ray, for this well-thought-out explanation. It is the sort of writing which says things clearly and yet makes one realize how much one would like to understand further ...(you can replace 'me' for the word 'one' here, but I suspect I speak for many readers here)
Yours
in the Communion of Saints
and may the holy ones intercede for us all!