Posted on 11/27/2004 1:29:09 PM PST by pachomi33
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man's first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288
The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
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".293 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.294 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.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world".300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins.301
409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man's life a battle:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303
IV. "YOU DID NOT ABANDON HIM TO THE POWER OF DEATH"
410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium ("first gospel"): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"308
IN BRIEF
413 "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" (Wis 1:13; 2:24).
414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
415 "Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him" (GS 13 § 1).
416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").
419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Rom 5:20).
421 Christians believe that "the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . ." (GS 2 § 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
257 St. Augustine, Conf. 7,7,11: PL 32,739. 258 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:16. 259 Cf. Rom 5:20. 260 Cf. Lk 11:21-22; Jn 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8. 261 Cf. Rom 5:12-21. 262 Jn 16:8. 263 Cf. 1 Cor 2:16. 264 Cf. GS 13 § 1. 265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654. 266 Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24. 267 Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9. 268 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800. 269 Cf. 2 Pet 2:4. 270 Gen 3:5. 271 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44. 272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877. 273 Jn 8:44; cf. Mt 4:1-11. 274 1 Jn 3:8. 275 Rom 8:28. 276 Gen 2:17. 277 Gen 2:17. 278 Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19. 279 St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5. 280 Cf. Rom 3:23. 281 Cf. Gen 3:5-10. 282 Cf. Gen 3:7-16. 283 Cf. Gen 3:17,19. 284 Rom 8:21. 285 Gen 3:19; cf. 2:17. 286 Cf. Rom 5:12. 287 Cf. Gen 4:3-15; 6:5,12; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 1-6; Rev 2-3. 288 GS 13 § 1. 289 Rom 5:12,19. 290 Rom 5:18. 291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512. 292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514. 293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1. 294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512 295 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513. 296 DS 371-372. 297 Cf. DS 1510-1516. 298 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511; cf. Heb 2:14. 299 Cf. John Paul II, CA 25. 300 Jn 1:29. 301 Cf. John Paul II, RP 16. 302 1 Jn 5:19; cf. 1 Pet 5:8. 303 GS 37 § 2. 304 Cf. Gen 3:9,15. 305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20. 306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573. 307 St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73,4: PL 54,396. 308 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,1,3, ad 3; cf. Rom 5:20.
"What differences lie between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy RE Original Sin?"
Well, we have the Catholic position set out for inspection here - how does it differ from your understanding of ancestral sin?
This new Catechism is very Eastern in it's approach to grace and the Fall. Deification is specifically mentioned as the natural goal and destiny of man- a slightly different formulation than the older Thomistic expression of differentiating from nature and grace. Also the juridical tones which send up red flags to the Orthodox are absent. It is hard to disagree with the document as it stands. St. Maximus (my personal favorite if that can ever be so) is quoted. And the how of original sin is stated to be a mystery par.404. Again very Eastern to allow the mystery to remain that.
What is not touched much in the document- perhaps deliberatley- is the belief of original sin staining a child. The Orthodox do not accept that the child or any of us bear guilt; because of the sin we suffer the effects of it not the personal guilt. Again the document seems to state exactly that- perhaps I am reading it wrong but it simply states we are implicated.Which is true. On the other hand para.411 the +Theotokos is stated to be preserved from the "Stain" of original sin. Here is where the difference lies. One other thing is ommitted in the document; the state of Adam. St. Augustine viewed Adam as in a state of complete perfection- Orthodox starting with St. Irenaeus have always seen Adam in a state of relative perfection- or theosis. These are important differences.
"The Orthodox do not accept that the child or any of us bear guilt; because of the sin we suffer the effects of it not the personal guilt. Again the document seems to state exactly that- perhaps I am reading it wrong but it simply states we are implicated.Which is true."
You are reading it right. You are quite correct to say that we do not bear a personal guilt for original sin. "Original sin" as applied to us is a bit of a misnomer - when Catholics say that Baptism cleanses us from Original Sin, what we actually mean is that the Sacraments cleanses us from the effects of the Original Sin. Original Sin per se is the sin of Adam.
One of the effects of Original Sin is that we are born in a state of dis-grace, out of God's covenant family, in a state of alienation from God. This is the "stain" of Original Sin that we speak of and when we say +Theotokos was conceived without this stain (immaculately conceived), we simply mean that she was born in a state of grace as opposed to dis-grace.
"One other thing is ommitted in the document; the state of Adam. St. Augustine viewed Adam as in a state of complete perfection-"
I think that may be a bit of an extreme or Calvinist interpretation of St. Augustine, but it certainly isn't what the Catholic Church believes. (If you have a quotation in mind I would be interested to see it).
In our Easter liturgy we commemorate the "Felix culpa" - the "happy sin", because through Adam's sin Christ came and gave us much more than our first parents had ever been. Yes, they had the potential for partaking in the divine nature, but this was only actualised with the coming of Christ.
St. Augustine is influential in Catholic theology, but he isn't the be-all and end-all - we do not consider him to have been infallible! There have been several weighty theologians who have disagreed with him on some points, so if you want to find out what Catholics believe, I would recommend that you don't take St. Augustine in isolation. Individual Fathers can err on points of doctrine.
"One of the effects of Original Sin is that we are born in a state of dis-grace, out of God's covenant family, in a state of alienation from God. This is the "stain" of Original Sin that we speak of and when we say +Theotokos was conceived without this stain (immaculately conceived), we simply mean that she was born in a state of grace as opposed to dis-grace."
This is close to the Orthodox position, but rather different from what I thought Blessed Augustine taught. At any rate, we believe that Adam lived, prior to the Fall, in a state of potential theosis; that he was by no means perfect. Because of his sin, death and a propensity to sin entered the world, but man's potential for divinization nevertheless continued to exist though in a much more precarious setting. We can actually respond to the call to baptism because of our remaining potential, but can not progress in theosis without the grace of baptism. The response to God's call is an act of Free Will and thus a type of sydesmos or partnership with God's salvic energy.
Isn't it the nature of the +Augustinian formulation of the Sin of Adam and its consequences which some, a Pope included obviously, claim necessitates the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? I know Aquinas seemed to deny the doctrine of an Immaculate Conception ("The grace of God is given for two reasons, namely, in order to act well, and to avoid evil. And with respect to these two the Blessed Virgin had most perfect grace. For more than any other holy person save Christ alone she avoided all sin. For sin is either original, and of this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and of these she was free."), though truth be told he was probably more concerned with those who denied, or speculated upon her sinlessness than on an Immaculate Conception. Certainly his comment would seem to take care of any Original Sin problem which might arise in the formulation of Original Sin contained in your post without getting into Immaculate Conception. What am I missing, Deacon?
Dear Kolokotronis,
I'm not sure that you're missing anything.
Descendants of Adam are conceived lacking grace, lacking the original justice that Adam enjoyed. This is all that is meant by Original Sin. Perhaps it ought to be renamed, "Original Brokenness," but I don't have naming rights. ;-)
Mary, at conception, didn't lack this grace. She was preserved, through the merits of Jesus Christ, from Original Sin. She entered life, at conception, in the state that Adam enjoyed at his creation.
That's probably a bit oversimplified, but that's what I learned.
sitetest
I'm curious on the Catholic teaching of this topic in relation to a dichotomous vs a trichotomous view of anthropology.
One doctrine I've read uses the trichotomous perspective as a tool to emphasisze and discern the spirit-filled life in fellowship with God through Christ, as discerned from a soulish perspective where a believer might fall into legalism and scar themselves while studying doctrine from a wrong perspective.
Accordingly, passages such as Romans 5:12 would take on various different meanings.
Additionally, I had understood some Hebrew meaing of the term 'death' to be a state of existence involving separation.
If man is body, soul, and spirit,....Adam and Christ, being the only 2 men in history born with body, soul and spirit as given by God, and all others born dichotomous, of body and soul,..then Romans 5:12 takes on a clearer perspective.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world,
(as thru Adam sin entered into the world (cosmos as Satan's system, or earth as God created it?) )
and death through sin,
A state of existence involving separation,....I've seen several different interpretations of this phrasing,...one being a spiritual death,...as soon as Adam sinned, he defacto was separate from God since God is anything but sin.
Several interpretations imply this is speaking to physical death as a penalty divinely ordained as a consequence of sin.
and so death spread to all men,
Separation from God followed to all men spiritually and/or physically,...
because all sinned-- ...
if born dichotomous, we are automatically separated from God from His Spirit,...so as we are acting separate from Him we reside in a state of sin...i.e. our separateness implies we sin,..spiritually, if for no other reason. Further theology may continue that the exceeding sinfulness of sin further erodes us and brings on further sin.
I'm just curious if you've run into any other Catholic Fathers teachings which leaned more upon a trichotomous view of man as opposed to attaching a meaning of emotion or feeling to 'spirit' as a 'holy' righteous and just form of soulish behavior....??
Forgive my ignorance of the East but from what I've read thus far, EO does believe pretty much what the west does re:Original Sin. One exception being that the EO do not believe we are born with it - is that correct?
St. Augustine viewed Adam as in a state of complete perfection- Orthodox starting with St. Irenaeus have always seen Adam in a state of relative perfection- or theosis.
I am also unfamiliar with this view of St. Augustine, however if he was speaking about Adam before his sin, then yes, it could be said metaphoricly that he was created in a state of complete perfection, but only in that he was created by God in the state of grace, free from all stain of sin or its concupiscience.
I suppose another comparison could be Lucifer and the rest of the angels, they were also "perfect" when God created them.
Perhaps my asuumption is wrong but is "the condition or the state of deity" a good definition for "theosis"?
Since both the angels and Adam fell for want of being Gods themselves, I guess I don't understand St. Irenaeus' view.
I agree with you, pachomi. The use of the term "sin" in referring to the descendants of Adam is where the rub comes in. This of course is why Rome has promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as I opined earlier. The rest of the Catechism article seems very Orthodox. Deacon, does this concept of inherited sin derive from Blessed Augustine? I guess I can't see what it adds, other than complication, to an already well developed, internally consistent and thoroughly Orthodox position.
Regarding Panagia -- that seems to have come into Catholic theology due to the one question -- Christ is God. How then, could God be born from a human being tainted by sin?
"Negating pre-destination?"
Absolutely, but not divine fore-knowledge of a sinner's choices.
"At any rate, we believe that Adam lived, prior to the Fall, in a state of potential theosis; that he was by no means perfect."
Yes so do we, although in the sense that he had no sin at this point, there was no disruption in his relationship with God and hence he was able to talk with, walk with and see God. However, his state of theosis was only potentially perfect, as you say. The Scotist school of Catholic theology maintains that even if Adam had not sinned, Christ would still have come to mankind in order that God could be fully revealed to us in the incarnation and our full theosis be made possible (but that's another long story!!!).
"Because of his sin, death and a propensity to sin entered the world, but man's potential for divinization nevertheless continued to exist though in a much more precarious setting."
Yes, we describe this as man's fallen nature. The image and likeness of God remain in us in a disfigured state because humanity's "original justice" was lost by Adam's sin, but the potential for divinization remains because man is still available to be acted upon by God's grace. We believe that grace heals, raises up, and renews our nature - it does not destroy it or change it into something other than it was potentially before.
"We can actually respond to the call to baptism because of our remaining potential, but can not progress in theosis without the grace of baptism."
Yes.
"The response to God's call is an act of Free Will and thus a type of sydesmos or partnership with God's salvic energy."
Yes - although there are different schools of thought within Catholic theology as to the degree and at which point our will becomes truly free to cooperate with God's grace. Because our will is fallen, we would say that one cannot respond at all to the call to baptism without God's grace (salvific energy) moving us to do so - St. Thomas called this "operating grace" as the initiative is entirely God's and we can do nothing to earn, merit or even elicit this grace. Once moved by operating grace, however, one's will must then co-operate in "sydesmos" with God's grace - co-operating grace in this case - in order to receive the grace of baptism (Sanctifying grace). Our subsequent theosis is thenceforward dependent upon us freely co-operating with God's grace until the day he calls us home.
"Isn't it the nature of the +Augustinian formulation of the Sin of Adam and its consequences which some, a Pope included obviously, claim necessitates the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?"
I don't think this is the principle reason or logic behind the formulation of the doctrine. The main "necessity" behind it is simply: "Hail Mary, Full of Grace...", and the fact that she is "Panagia".
"I know Aquinas seemed to deny the doctrine of an Immaculate Conception ("The grace of God is given for two reasons, namely, in order to act well, and to avoid evil. And with respect to these two the Blessed Virgin had most perfect grace. For more than any other holy person save Christ alone she avoided all sin. For sin is either original, and of this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and of these she was free.")"
St. Thomas' had two main objections to proclaiming the doctrine:
1) He was of the belief (as many were in that period) that "ensoulment" of the embryo did not take place until 7-14 days after conception. Consequently, as it is in the soul that the principle effects of Adam's sin are felt, what sense does it make to claim that +Theotokos was preserved from the effects of Adam's sin before she had even received her soul?
2) He felt that the idea of her being preserved from the effects of Adam's sin, rather than cleansed of the effects of Adam's sin within the womb (cf. +John the Baptist), implied that she had no need of a redeemer. However, it is only because of the anticipated merits of her Son's redemption of humanity that she was able to be preserved from the effects of Adam's sin, and so be filled with grace from the moment of her existence.
This of course is not to imply that her nature is any different from or less capable of sin than ours, or in any less need of theosis. The second Eve was just as capable of sin as the first Eve, but unlike the first Eve she co-operated with God's grace and did not, and in so doing undid the knot!
"What am I missing, Deacon?"
I'm not sure you are, are you? East and West may use theological terms which are often alien to the other, but the realities which we are trying to describe don't seem to be too dissimilar to me - or am I missing something? ;)
"Descendants of Adam are conceived lacking grace, lacking the original justice that Adam enjoyed. This is all that is meant by Original Sin. Perhaps it ought to be renamed, "Original Brokenness," but I don't have naming rights."
Bingo! - that is the essence of it. It is a lack, rather than the presence of a personal fault.
"Because our will is fallen, we would say that one cannot respond at all to the call to baptism without God's grace (salvific energy) moving us to do so - St. Thomas called this "operating grace" as the initiative is entirely God's and we can do nothing to earn, merit or even elicit this grace. Once moved by operating grace, however, one's will must then co-operate in "sydesmos" with God's grace - co-operating grace in this case - in order to receive the grace of baptism (Sanctifying grace). Our subsequent theosis is thenceforward dependent upon us freely co-operating with God's grace until the day he calls us home."
This is pure Orthodoxy. You have expressed it more precisely than I have. Of course this is completely different from what the protestants believe.
Off to Liturgy. I'll light a candle for all of you!
"Regarding Panagia -- that seems to have come into Catholic theology due to the one question -- Christ is God. How then, could God be born from a human being tainted by sin?"
Ah, but you see, she was preserved from sin, despite her human nature, by God's grace and her own response to that grace. As Deacon Tantumergo points out, the second Eve, Panagia, did not exercise her Free Will to sin as the first Eve did. Panagia is all the more remarkable for this because, unlike Eve, she was born with a propensity to sin. Its the "tainted by sin" phrase that cause the problem for us.
Off to Liturgy. As I've said elsewhere, I'll light a candle for all of you!
"Orthodoxy holds that man is born with a propensity to sin and subject to death as a result of Adam's Sin."
This "propensity to sin" is what we call "concupiscence".
"To be mundane about it, it is rather like an ancestor intentionally did something which changed him or her genetically and that change not only had dire consequences for the ancestor, but also for his/her descendants, who of course bore no responsibility for the original act. That act of free will in my rather homely example, did not deprive the ancestor, or his/her descendants of their basic nature or humanity, but it did in some manner corrupt it."
Very useful analogy, I would say we can go along with that 100%.
"Adam was created to live in a perfect system wherein he could in theory work out his theosis without being subject to death. After the sin, the setting changed rather dramatically and we inherited a propensity for sin and a certainty of death as our basic nature had been corrupted by Adam's Sin. We, personally, are not guilty of anything at conception and we reject that we are "stained" (I wish the Roman Church used a different word there)."
If I could set out the Eastern idea of Ancestral sin, and the Western idea of Original sin to aid simple comparison?:
East, Ancestral: 1) Propensity to sin, 2) subject to death, 3) No personal guilt of Adam's sin.
West, Original: 1) Propensity to sin, 2) subject to death, 3) No personal guilt of Adam's sin, 4) lack of Sanctifying Grace.
It is the last point - the lack of Sanctifying Grace which (perhaps unhelpfully?) the West calls the "stain" - where we appear to differ.
"Though it is somewhat out of order, let me say that the East has a problem with Panagia having been conceived without the consequences of the Sin of Adam inherent in her because we feel that would make her perfect and not fully human from conception."
I could understand that if we thought that Adam was perfect and not fully human prior to his sin - but, as far as I know, no Catholic theologian has ever claimed that!
"The Orthodox Church believes that Panagia was, through the power of the Holy Spirit, preserved in a sinless state, notwithstanding her human nature. To say otherwise, we believe, would deny the humanity of Christ which is, of course, basic to Christology and the Faith."
But that is exactly what we believe too! (Now my head is starting to hurt!!! ;))
Here I want to interject that Her nature, though human, actually was different, because, She was born without OS (Original Sin). Her nature was different in that She did not suffer the effects or concupiscience of it. IOW, the tendancy toward evil that is the result of OS was not found in Her. Her nature therefore was not one of concupiscience as ours is. Rather, because She was full of grace and never having any concupiscience, Her tendancy, unlike ours, would have always been toward God.
Thats how I'm reading it too - Hey, this can't be right!:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.