www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Saint Mary in the Orthodox Concept

I quoted what I thought was relevant in this instance. The entire text I pulled it from is on New Advent, so I am not hiding anything. The delimitations, the one in what I quoted and what New Advent continues to say, don�t at all alter my point. In fact they make it.

Let me pose it then, since it was posed to the Orthodox in this thread. Who speaks authoritatively for the Eastern Catholics? What is the authoritative teaching for Eastern Catholics on Original Sin and where is it to be found?

Andrew

I am not familiar with the writings of Andrew Rubis, but if he actually thought that sin is an ontological deficiency within man's nature, then I can see no way in which his writings can be reconciled to the teaching of St. Maximos.

Ultimately, this theological issue returns to differences between Eastern and Western Triadological and Christological doctrine, because the Eastern Fathers make distinctions between essence, energy, and hypostasis, while the teaching of St. Augustine and the Scholastics does not. For St. Maximos, whose influence is clearly seen in the Christological doctrine of the Byzantine Church, sin can only be found in the hypostatic enactment of the will, and the enactment of the will is an energy, which is really distinct from nature, but if a man holds that sin is in the nature of man as some kind of ontological corruption, it follows that that man has fallen into a form of the Monothelite heresy and he would be condemned under the anathemas of the 6th ecumenical council. Sin is always and by definition personal.

Although I appreciate the quotations that you have supplied, I do not interpret them in an Augustinian way, and so I do not see them as advocating an ontological corruption of human nature. If human nature is ontologically corrupted and sinful, it follows that Christ would be sinful, because He assumed a nature identical with our own. Sin is in the hypostatic enactment of the natural will, as St. Maximos taught, and so it is not in man's nature itself. I've read many Orthodox theologians (e.g, Meyendorff, Lossky, Staniloae, Yannaras, Tsirpanlis, and others) and I have never seen them endorsing the Augustinian view of original sin.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Todd, The phrasing that I recall from Andrew Rubis, (I think) was "missing the mark"; but with no further elaboration along the lines of St. Maximos. As to the second point - it's not at all a matter of accepting Augustine in whole or in part. My question is about whether the causal trains that you gave are taken as dogma in either church. The given quotations give list of consequences without causal priority. Ditto for the CCC. If this causal linkage is dogmatic, then why would the list be casually presented as A and B and C, rather than A therefore B therefore C? And what does this choice in presentation reveal?

Is this idea consistent with the idea of involuntary sins?

The Eastern "causal train" is founded upon the teaching of St. Maximos (but is found in the Eastern Fathers prior to St Maximos), which is reflected in the dogmatic decrees of the 6th ecumenical council. The distinction of nature and person (hypostasis) is required by the Christological dogma of the Church. Sin cannot be found within nature itself, or Christ, who assumed a complete human nature ontologically identical to our own, would be sinful. Sin is a personal (hypostatic) reality, and it finds its place in the gnomic enactment of the will by the human person. That being said, Christ is not sinful because He is a divine hypostasis who perfectly enacts a human nature (will and energy).

Dear Friends,

I was wondering when we would ever get to the Immaculate Conception on this Forum!

How wonderful that we have finally started to discuss it . . .

It seems that the last thousand or so posts on this topic have left much to be desired, theologically that is . . .

But surely the point is that it is not so much whether the Eastern and Western views on Mary's total holiness and Original "Sinology" can be reconciled - it is that RC's have now begun to think about their own praxis here and are beginning to cast it within a context that resonates with Eastern Patristics.

In pith and substance, IF it can be shown that Western views on Original Sin posited an actual "stain of sin" on one's soul, then, as Archbishop Kallistos has also remarked, the RC Immaculate Conception was meant to show that the Theotokos was exempt from that stain.

This is not without its own problems, but the fact is that there are Orthodox theologians who have failed to show that they themselves understand fully the distinction between Eastern and Western views of Original Sin ie. the recent statement by the EP on the subject.

Alex

Sorry for replying so late to this thread, I read through all (MOST) of it and I will have to read it over thrice.

Anyhow,
Someone had mentioned Augustine's view on Original Sin. He may have thought Adam's sin was inherited to man - this I do not know, but the RC doesn't accept this. Infact St. Thomas Aquinas, while calling it Original Sin, defines it NOT as inherited in human NATURE but the 'leaning toward' - Aquinas does infact term Original Sin as ILLNESS.

This is not a modern idea but born in the 1300s.