Ancestral and original sin

[S. David]

Beloved in Christ,

What is the practical difference between the ancestral (Orthodox view) and original (catholic view) sin? I mean, I know there is conceptual difference, where, we, the Orthodox say that we inherit the consequences of the ancestral sin which are corruption and death, while catholic says that we inherit the sin itself? How this difference translated in the practice and life of the Church, and what is the significance of the Orthodox Church's teaching on this matter?

In-Christ

[Paul Cowan]

Dear S. David,

Have you an opportunity to scroll through the threads on this topic already via the search feature?

[S. David]

Dear S. David,

Have you an opportunity to scroll through the threads on this topic already via the search feature?

Dear Paul Cowan,

Thank you for replying. I believe that this topic is covered in a way or another in the forums, but, because my native language is not English, I find it difficult to track all posts on the subject, and in many times I lost in translation, and I do not get the point. So, I hoped that the answer will summarize the main points of the subject.

In Christ

[Aidan Kimel]

S. David, you may find helpful Archbishop Hilarion's presentation of ancestral sin (http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1#PRIMORDIAL_HUMANITY_BEFORE_THE_FALL).

[Anna Stickles]

One practical difference between the typical western view and the Orthodox view is that in general Orthodoxy, becuase of it's absolute insistence on human freedom, puts more responsibility on us to stuggle for our salvation. And also the Orthodox view puts more emphasis on a direct, moment to moment dependence on God, becuase it does not teach any kind of permanent or irrevocable change.

[Aidan Kimel]

One practical difference between the typical western view and the Orthodox view is that in general Orthodoxy, becuase of it's absolute insistence on human freedom, puts more responsibility on us to stuggle for our salvation.

Anna, I think your point holds for Protestant congregations in which the bondage of the will and the sola fide is consistently proclaimed, but I do not think it really holds for Latin Catholic parishes. Catholic preaching presupposes the synergistic freedom of the baptized just as much as Orthodox preaching--but with one critical difference: Catholic preaching tends toward exhortation to live a moral life, whereas Orthodox preaching tends toward exhortation to live an ascetical life. For both, what we "do" has salvific consequences. This observation is admittedly based on limited experience of Orthodox preaching, but I think it may hold.


And also the Orthodox view puts more emphasis on a direct, moment to moment dependence on God, becuase it does not teach any kind of permanent or irrevocable change.

Is this true? It certainly is not true for most Protestants here in the U.S. (whether liberal Protestant, evangelical, or Pentecostal), for whom the direct, unmediated experience of the Divine is the central point of religious practice. As Harold Bloom observes in his book The American Religion (http://www.amazon.com/American-Religion-Harold-Bloom/dp/0978721004/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268424736&sr=8-2), nobody here but us neo-gnostics. :) Perhaps your suggestion might be true for Catholics, whose religious experience tends to be more sacramentally and ecclesially mediated ... but I'm still not sure.

[Anna Stickles]

Is this true? It certainly is not true for most Protestants here in the U.S. (whether liberal Protestant, evangelical, or Pentecostal), for whom the direct, unmediated experience of the Divine is the central point of religious practice.

Certainly direct unmediated experience of the Divine is a central goal in Orthodox spirituality. To attain this is the purpose for which ascetic practice is undertaken. That this is indeed attainable was one of the key points St Gregory of Palamas was defending in his defense of Orthodoxy against Barlaam. Some quotes from St Theophan the Recluse, The Path to Salvation, part 3 ch 1 (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm#_Toc13899809)



The goal towards which the convert should direct all his attention and labors is the final goal of man and the economy of salvation, namely: pleasing God, a living unity with God, becoming worthy of His kingdom. The searching, zealous spirit will only be at peace when he attains God, tastes Him and is filled. ...

Communion begins at the moment of awakening. Man discovers it through searching and longing for God, and God reveals it through His good will, assistance, and protection. But God is still outside of man and man is outside of God, not commingling and not freely mutually accepted. In the Sacrament of Baptism or Confession the Lord enters a man by His grace, is in live communion with him, and allows him to taste all the sweetness of Divinity, so abundantly and perceptibly, as though it were essentially culminated in him. But then He again hides this manifestation of His communion, only renewing it from time to time — and at that only lightly, as if in a reflection and not in His original state. He leaves man in ignorance of Himself and His dwelling in man until the man has reached a specific level of maturity or education, according to God's wise guidance. After this, the Lord perceptibly manifests His dwelling in the man's spirit, which has by then become a temple of the Tri-hypostatic Divinity filling him.
Thus, there are three forms of communion with God: one is mental, which happens during the period of conversion; and the other two are actual, but one of them is hidden, invisible to others and unknown to us ourselves, while the other is obvious to us and to others.

The first form of communion, the most understandable and common, does not cease during the second or even third stages, because spiritual life is mental life. However, in these stages it differs characteristically from its first quality, which is something impossible to explain in words. All spiritual life consists in the movement from mental communion with God to actual, live, perceptible and manifest communion....

Finally, when this period of hidden communion with God and His mysterious activity in the soul is over (the duration of this period not being in man's hands but in the guiding wisdom of man-saving grace), God dwells in man in a special manner. He visibly fills him, unites Himself to him and communes with him. This is the goal man strives to achieve through all his ascetic struggles and labors, all the economy of salvation from God Himself, and all that happens to each person in the present life from birth to the grave. St. Macarius writes that the work of grace after long trials finally shows itself fully, and the soul acquires full sonship of the Spirit. God Himself proves the heart, and man is made worthy to be of one spirit with the Lord. According to St. Diadochus, "If a man, while still alive, can undergo death through his labors, then in his entirety he becomes the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit." "Grace illumines his whole being with a deeper awareness, warming him with great love of God." This action reveals itself or is accompanied by different manifestations with different people.


Of course there are various PC traditions as you mention that emphasize this also, at least in theory. I came out of one, and it is from this experience that my statements are made. In the end, without the sacramental connection and due to various wrong doctrinal formations the PC spiritual life often bogs down into dependence on self, not dependence on God. My experience is that in Orthodoxy the fragmentation between the rational, sacramental, and mystical aspects of our life in Christ that plagues so much of the west has not occured.

I probably sound like a broken record, since I have said this before, but it's unity, integrity and integration - ie, incorruption that one finds in Orthodoxy. One can find all the various peices out there somewhere in other traditions, but not put togther into a coherent whole.

Absolutely one of the best presentations of the relationship of our sacramental and mystical life and experience I've seen is in a book called "The Church At Prayer: The mystical liturgy of the heart" by Arch Aimilianos. Unfortunately I borrowed this book and have since returned it or I could quote. Arch Aimilianos is recognized as one of the leading figures, along with a few others, to lead the monastic revival on Mt Athos that started in the early 70's.

[Aidan Kimel]

Anna, perhaps my comment was not clear. I certainly was not questioning whether "direct unmediated experience of the Divine is a central goal in Orthodox spirituality." I am simply questioning whether, because of differing conceptions of original sin, Orthodoxy "puts more emphasis on a direct, moment to moment dependence on God" than Western traditions. I do not believe this holds as a generalization. It certainly does not hold for my Pentecostal/charismatic friends and relatives, whose religious lives are profoundly grounded, so they believe and testify, in an "immediate" experience of the Spirit.

But your comment has raised a question in my own mind: What does it mean for Christians to speak of enjoying a "direct unmediated experience of the Divine"? Surely, for example, our experience of the divine is essentially mediated through the incarnate Jesus Christ, nor do I imagine we wish to discard the mediatorial role of ecclesia, sacraments, and the saints in our experience of the Divine. I suspect that Orthodoxy means something very different by the language of unmediated experience of God than, say, gnostic and Eastern religions. Would you agree?

[Anna Stickles]

Surely, for example, our experience of the divine is essentially mediated through the incarnate Jesus Christ, nor do I imagine we wish to discard the mediatorial role of ecclesia, sacraments, and the saints in our experience of the Divine. I suspect that Orthodoxy means something very different by the language of unmediated experience of God than, say, gnostic and Eastern religions. Would you agree?

I suppose you have a good point here that there has to be some clarity on what we mean by 'unmediated'.

am simply questioning whether, because of differing conceptions of original sin, Orthodoxy "puts more emphasis on a direct, moment to moment dependence on God" than Western traditions. I do not believe this holds as a generalization. It certainly does not hold for my Pentecostal/charismatic friends and relatives, whose religious lives are profoundly grounded, so they believe and testify, in an "immediate" experience of the Spirit.


Ask your charismatic friends whether they believe there is any relationship between their religious experiences and their sanctification. For the most part charismatic Prots see no connection at all. Orthodoxy teaches that our growth into deeper levels of communion with God is indeed a healing of our sins and restoration of the condition of man before the fall. I think that in this Catholicism is closer to Orthodoxy isn't it?

The reason that charismatics do not see the connection is because they do not have the same understanding of what happened at the fall, what sin is, and what is required to heal it. Their beliefs are a mass of inconsistencies and contradictions and I am not even going to try to sort it out. Having left it, I am not interested in being drawn back into the mess. The questions would have to get much more specific then the generalizations we are talking about here.

[Anna Stickles]

Let me put this another way. What are the charismatics dependent on God for? Well... help with what they are doing in their life, their health, etc. It's a child's relationship with God at best, one that does not recognize nor take responsibility for their own sinfulness; and at worst full of pride and selfishness. Because of their veiws of sin and the fall, and what Christ does to save us, the charismatic sees themself as already saved. Already righteous in Christ and this delusion keeps them from recognizing their own true state and need at deeper levels.

Whereas for the Orthodox religious experience is the encounter of sinful man with a holy God. For the Orthodox dependence on God means we are recognizing that we are sinners dependent on Him for our salvation. This is why we pray, "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner." We recognize how powerless we are apart from Him, in the battle againt sin. Moment to moment we are dependent on Him for help not to be sucked down into the morass of sin by the forces of death and enmity of Satan. A feeling of sinfulness and our separation from God leading to repentance is the first order of religious experience for the Orthodox. This is hardly what is taught by the charismatics, or what dependence means to them.

See this part (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm#_Toc13899772)of St Theophan's book. It's a good chapter for us all to read no doubt since we can all find ourselves therein.

[Aidan Kimel]

Anna, I don't think we want to go down this dangerous road. Before long we'll find ourselves in the Temple praying praying, "O God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are ..."

What I will say is that my several of my Pentecostal relatives, most especially including my grandmother, are some of the godliest and most faithful people that I have ever been privileged to know. I have no idea what they believe about original sin. All I know is that they love the Lord and have consecrated their lives to him.

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, it might be interesting to contemplate whether the Orthodox understanding of original sin as the inheritance of mortality authorizes or engenders a particular kind of spirituality and asceticism, a kind not found, e.g., in Western Churches. I'm thinking here, e.g., of Florovsky's "The Ascetical Ideal and the New Testament (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/florov_nt.aspx)." Of course, the influence might run the other way--namely, our ascetical practices might determine what we believe original sin to be.

[Anna Stickles]

I just scanned the first bit but the article looks quite good and I will take the time to read through it as I am able. Thanks for the link.

I was wondering though, if you could enlarge on what you mean by "the Orthodox understanding of original sin as the inheritance of mortality " just so when I come back to the discussion I am sure we are on the same page. The wording is a bit confusing.

You seem to be saying we inherit the original sin, rather then saying we inherit the consequences of the sin, but this whole idea of inherit is kind of confusing to me, so if you will let me reword. ... Fr Raphael and I had an extended discussion on this once because I was having a hard time grasping it, but the upshot of the conversation, as far as I have grasped things, is that the Fathers teach (and this is especially evident in Athanasius) that mortality, ie- a certain instability and tendency toward corruption, is intrinsic to human nature by virtue of its createdness and is not due to original sin. Original sin, ie Adam and Eve's willful and unrepentant turning away from God, is what caused humanity to start actively experiencing this mortality. Is this what you mean or something different?

[Anna Stickles]

Of course, the influence might run the other way--namely, our ascetical practices might determine what we believe original sin to be.


This gets into the interesting question of the authority and source for our belief. I would not say that our ascetical practices determine our belief, but rather that our ascetical practices lead us into a state by which we see the effects of original sin more truly. Sin itself distorts our view of our own sinfulness.

As our new Fr Ireneaus has said in the Introduction to the Passions (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6617-Introduction-to-the-passions-101&p=87092&viewfull=1#post87092)thread


A right orientation towards the Kingdom of God sets the heart in the only position whereby it may accurately struggle in a Christ-like way in this world. Not only does it come to see its foe more directly—that is, the external spiritual realm which wages battle against the righteous—but it also is given the perspective to understand its own internal warfare. That is, an orientation of life past the sinful confines of this world, toward the eternity of the Kingdom, allows man to see his fallen self more authentically, discovering in himself those things which prevent him from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom.

[Aidan Kimel]

Anna, by "inheritance of mortality," I simply have in mind whatever Fr John Meyendorff (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm#_Toc26430266) means by the phrase.

[Anna Stickles]

Well, it seems that this basically states what I have stated above.



Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality

but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximus, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him as for the others, "the wrong choice but not inherited guilt made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality."


In these quotes looked at in context we can see that what is "inherited" is this force of corruption that "holds humanity under it's sway". We also see that the word sin as used here refers to a personal act of the will wherein the free person accepts or makes one's own that corruption. Original sin is simply Adam's personal rebellion that set the forces of corruption in motion. As is implied here:


From these basic ideas about the personal character of sin, it is evident that the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God could be conceived only as their personal sin; there would be no place, then, in such an anthropology for the concept of inherited guilt, or for a "sin of nature," although it admits that human nature incurs the consequences of Adam’s sin.



The heresy of the Aphthartodocetae whose leader was the sixth-century theologian Julian of Halicarnassus conceived Christ’s humanity as incorruptible, and they were accused of a docetic understanding of the Incarnation. As R. Draguet has shown, the issue is not so much the connection between hypostatic union and corruptibility but the very nature of man. Was man naturally corruptible..., or did corruptibility come with sin? The Aphthartodocetae denied that man by nature was corruptible.


Here we see that the Orthodox position is that man is by nature corruptible. The quote from Athanasius in your first link deals with this also.



For this cause the Savior reasonably put on Him a body, in order that the body, becoming wound closely to the Life, should no longer, as mortal, abide in death, but, as having put on immortality, should thenceforth rise again and remain immortal. For, once it had put on corruption, it could not have risen again unless it had put on life.
... in this very way one may say, with regard to the body and death, that if death had been kept from the body by a mere command on His part, it would none the less have been mortal and corruptible, according to the nature of bodies; but, that this should not be, it put on the incorporeal Word of God, and thus no longer fears either death or corruption, for it has life as a garment, and corruption is done away in it.

One can see here and through the analogy of the stubble that I didn't quote, that Athanasius is saying that bodies by nature are corruptible and mortal, and that it is in virute of their union with God that they are protected from this natural tendency to die or corrupt.

So it looks like we are on the same page.

[Anna Stickles]

To get back to the question of practicalities, how one approaches the sacraments is certainly one of these practicalities. I thought this quite good.



"If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins," writes Theodoret, "why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself."
Thus, the Church baptizes children not to "remit" their yet nonexistent sins but in order to give them a new and immortal life, which their mortal parents are unable to communicate to them.


This goes right along with St Theophan's teaching in the Path to Salvation which I linked before. If all we are looking for is to get rid of some kind of inherited guilt or sin, all we need is baptism. Once baptized, or "saved", or one takes advantage of whatever means is offered for healing that original guilt, nothig more is required. As noted in Florovsky's article our Christian life becomes something passive. We are now good and have no more problems.

However, if what we are looking for is new life in Christ, and this life comes only as a result of the cooperation of our free will with grace, then we must struggle against the forces of corruption that captivate our will in order to really receive what the Church offers in her sacraments.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Anna,

Is your quote above from Theodoret (which Theodoret) or from St Theophan the Recluse? Thanks.

In Christ- Fr raphael

[Anna Stickles]

Anna,

Is your quote above from Theodoret (which Theodoret) or from St Theophan the Recluse? Thanks.

In Christ- Fr raphael

The quote is from the article linked by Fr Alvin above (about 1/2 of the way down the page)and is by Theodoret of Cyrus.

The quote from St Theophan I was thinking of was this


Therefore, Baptism is a rebirth or a new birth which puts a man in a renewed condition. The Apostle Paul compares all the baptized with the resurrected Saviour, giving us to understand that they also have the same bright nature in their renewal as was possessed by the human nature of the Lord Jesus through His resurrection in glory (Romans 6:4). And that the orientation of activity in a baptized person is changed may be seen in the words of the same Apostle, who says in another place that they already should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them, and rose again (II Cor. 5:15). ...

Remarkable are the words of the Apostle: That henceforth we should not serve sin, as well as his other words: Sin shall not have dominion over you (Rom. 6:14). This gives us to understand that the power which, in our disordered, fallen nature, draws us towards sin, is not entirely exterminated in Baptism, but is only placed in a condition in which it has no power over us, no dominion over us, and we do not serve it. But it is still in us, it lives and acts, only not as a lord. The primacy from now on belongs to the grace of God and to the soul that consciously gives itself over to it. Part 1 ch 1.4


Both Theodoret's quote and this remind me of what we were talking about in the "Baptism of those from Non-Orthodox churches" thread in regards the fact that life in the church is something more then simply our own personal escape from the negative consequences of sin. I have been thinking much on what you said.

This I think is very important. We need to get ourselves out of the mindset that salvation is only a reward (almost an award). It certainly has that aspect to it since what we receive from Christ is a gift that comes also from our participation.

But salvation is mainly life and literally a participation in the life of Christ. It has an aspect to it that not only saves us as individuals. Along with this our participation in Christ's life allows us to share in His work of restoring creation and humankind. Mainly this is done through the ways given us by the Church: prayer, asceticism, fasting, demanding services, self giving, humility, etc. These are the 'ortho-ways' which the Church gives us to give some peace to the world, to bind its wounds and put healing ointment on them.


I find a very interesting practical point, (quoted below) from St Theophan also in his chapter on baptism. It shows how even from infancy the cooperation between God and man, in man's growth in grace or fall into sin, is going on. Wrong doctrines of original sin tend to fail in missing the subtle nuances of the interrelationship of the person who is struggling toward God and the forces at work in the fallen nature effecting that person. Most of the wrong doctrines tend to see things in terms of some kind of permanent or irrevocable change taking place in the person rather then this constant interrelation of God and the soul.


So that it might be clear how one must act with regard to a baptized infant with these aims in mind, one must recall the above-mentioned idea that grace overshadows the heart and dwells in it when there is in the heart a turning away from sin and a turning towards God. If this attitude is manifested in act, there are further given all the other gifts of grace and all the characteristics of one who is dwelling in grace: the favor of God, the co-inheritance with Christ, the dwelling outside the sphere of satan, out of the danger of being condemned to hell. But as soon as this attitude of mind and heart decreases or is lost, immediately sin again begins to possess the heart, and through sin the bonds of satan are laid upon one and the favor of God and the co-inheritance with Christ are taken away. Grace in an infant weakens and stifles sin, but sin can again come to life and grow if it is given food and freedom. part 1 ch 1.5