www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Theology on Original Sin and E.C. vs. R.C. requirements for belie

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am having a difficult time understanding what Eastern Catholic theology teaches concerning original sin. I know well what the Latin Church teaches, but as an Eastern Catholic I find myself being confused as to what our Eastern lung of the Church teaches.

There have been a number of instances where I have asked around or read various sources concerning specific topics of Eastern Catholic theology. Unfortunately, I have run into the problem of conflicting answers. I've been told that we don't specifically believe in the Immaculate Conception, as this is a strictly Latin theological invention or explanation, and any Byzantine churches that have shrines to her are just a result of heavy latinization. I've also heard that we do believe in the Immaculate Conception, because we are united to Rome and must follow her teachings, which in my mind further separates us from our mother Orthodox Churches, and makes me wonder why we exist if we don't have the right to follow our own Church's Teachings. So who do I believe? The new Ukrainian Catechism sounds very Roman in so many instances, that I might as well have pulled out my old "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and referenced that instead when I have a question.

I am increasingly worried about passing my confusion onto my children or misrepresenting my Faith.

I read an article today from Fr. Z online concerning Original Sin, and then the comments from his readers, and his responses to them. (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/ask-...e-sin-of-adam-and-eve-when-werent-there/) I would really appreciate if someone, anyone, could read his article and responses to the Eastern Catholic commenter, and give me concrete answers as to how best to make sense of this basic theological question - At birth, are we guilty of Original Sin, or rather, are we just subject to the effects that Original Sin brought into the world?

Thank you for listening to my plea for help. I confess a crisis of faith to my brothers and sisters on this wall, and appreciate your kindness in answering, and your powerful prayers for my salvation.

Glory to Him forever!

Dear Johnbyz,

Be at peace! I would recommend turning the whole thing around. While it is true that, as an Eastern Catholic, it may seem harsh to have to accept "those Latin dogmas", I've found that it is actually a source of strength and a blessing from God. The definitions always articulate something that is, after all, a mystery. The truth of this mystery must be believed by all Catholics. The actual text of the definition may have been articulated in the specific "dialect" of the Western (or the Eastern) tradition and patrimony but it shines light on the mystery which is beyond the particular theological "trajectory" leading up to it. As an Eastern Catholic I have found that, armed with the certainty of the truth of the defined dogmas (e.g. the Immaculate Conception), it is then actually spiritually enriching and a source of great joy to investigate how the mystery enshrined in the dogma is embedded and revealed in the patrimony of the Eastern churches, i.e. the logic of "first believe to then understand" applies here as well.
For example, considering the question of the Immaculate Conception, I've stumbled upon the seminal work of Fr. Kappes, who beautifully demonstrated how the mystery behind it has been firmly held in the East under a seemingly unrelated, or even contradictory, title of Our Lady: the "Prepurified One".
Ref.: F. C. W. KAPPES, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, & Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (2014).

While not specifically addressing the question of the Original Sin, I hope this may be of some help. (Please also see my PM).

For JohnByz:

I was asked yesterday to ask you to be specific in identifying what you think are Latinizations in the new Ukrainian Catholic Catechism.

I have not yet seen it, so cannot comment.

Thanks!
John

I am presently at work and my copy is at home, so I can only give you what I can recall at the moment.

When I received the book I went to the index and found items like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. When I read the paragraphs on these items, they seemed very much like a re-stating of the (Roman) Catholic Catechism and what I have learned in theology classes.

The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church on Original Sin follows the 418 Synod of carthage, at which were present Augustine of Hippo and Bishop Aurelius. I know this because the canons of this synod are in the Pedalion, the Rudder, the book of Canons, under the Synod in Trullo:

CANON CXXI (121)
It has pleased the Synod to decree that whosoever denies the little
ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are
being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of
sins, but that they have inherited no propatorical sin from Adam
obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it
follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission
of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be
anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the
Apostle has said, viz., “Sin entered the world through one human
being” (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings;
wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic
Church diffused and spread abroad every where has ever
understood those words to mean.For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones
too, who are as yet incapable of committing any sin of their own to
render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the
remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the
primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of
renaissance."