Here’s another article, which is cited in the page presented above, but which is not immediately recognizable as a page where Orthodox Theology is discussed.
You will see that Orthodox theologians do refer to Original Sin, but not with the same meaning as Augustine and many Western denominations use.
“Here we must caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.”
.
.
.
[ Be sure to click on the image to maximize font size. ]
I’d like to draw your attention to the following article by Fr. Aidan F. Kimmel, titled, The Ecumenical Stain of Original Sin on his blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy, which suggests that there may be no appreciable difference between the Catholic and Orthodox positions on original sin. It’s irenic in tone and well worth reading. Cheers.
"Again I ask, Is there anything in this presentation to which an Eastern Orthodox theologian would strongly object? I acknowledge that the conceptuality of sanctifying grace, developed in the medieval West, is alien to Orthodox reflection. Scholasticism’s concern was to explicate the impact of God’s gratuitous self-communication on the human being. But the Roman Catholic Church can hardly insist that the Eastern Church must think in scholastic categories."
I have to wonder if the last sentence (in bold above) is agreeable to the Roman Catholic Church as it is presently constituted!
He quotes Pope John Paul II:
In one of his 1986 catechetical teachings, Pope John Paul II elaborated upon the “sin” of original sin:
“Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the [Tridentine] conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: “They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration” (DS 1514).”
While this sounds very much like much of what we read from Eastern Orthodox theologians, there is a subtle difference. You will note that on Part 2 of 2 Parts, one of the final sections is highlighted in a yellow box. It points out that babes are the ones that the New Testament specifically welcomes into the presence of God.
Children are baptized “for the remission of sins”, but this is not specifically explained in the particular articles I posted. What is this “remission of sins” from the Orthodox perspective?
If the Orthodox view of “Original Sin” is re-defined as “having a sin-inclined nature” (one sentence mentions a weakening of the human will because of Adam’s transgression), clearly baptism does not “cleanse” this kind of weakening. For babes and toddlers grow up to young adults and full adulthood, still bearing the full load of being inclined to sin. So, for the purpose of this discussion, “remission of sins” is a mysterious invocation in the Orthodox theological view, perhaps only in a symbolic sense.
Whatever this means exactly (and I look forward to examining that question), from a practical viewpoint, Baptism does not change a child’s sin-prone nature. Based on the pages I located, it would seem that the Orthodox would reject the need for “Purgatory” or “Limbo” for children, because they are not yet guilty of their own sin. They are merely (or not so merely) still and inevitably inclined to sin.
What, then, is the ultimate answer? I think that is completely up to how the Roman Catholic Church would amend (or not amend) the common interpretation of Augustine’s views. Has the Roman Church actually made these amendments? Or are they making “test runs” of narrative that would retreat somewhat from the harshness of conventional Original Sin proclamations? If they have privately made such amendments, it is pretty much up to the Vatican leadership to make this plain… rather than to simply write a Papal Bull that is Twice as long as usual… starting with the new narrative on “sinfulness” … and then sneaking in a paragraph towards the end that merely re-states the original hard-core interpretation of Augustine that states that ALL humans are guilty of Adam’s guilt.
We have seen these kinds of treatments … where much of it sounds promising and broadly receptive … only to be hung on a single sentence, confirming that no real change in the rules is being proposed.
Kimmel writes:
“The Catechism’s presentation of original sin is open to interpretation. It does not seek to resolve the differences between the various Catholic schools. The catechetical doctrine excludes the Pelagian reduction of original sin to “the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example,” on the one hand, and the Reformation exaggeration of original sin as the radical perversion of human nature and destruction of human freedom, on the other (§406). Between these two boundaries lies the mystery of human iniquity and the fall of man.”
Yep! That’s where we are. Somewhere between the Pelagian reduction of original sin AND the Reformation exaggeration of original sin as the radical perversion of human nature.
Firstly, until the Church strikes down and eliminates the more grave boundary line, I doubt the Orthodox Church would take such articles as Kimmel as very serious.
Secondly, even should the Catholic Church eliminate the presence of the more terse moral interpretation, we sill have the Protestant denominations that are not exactly enthusiastic about following rulings from the Vatican.
@jongarvey is the only “old school protestant” I know (so far) that is willing to define Original Sin as merely a statement of “sin-inclined nature”. Everybody with whom I’ve discussed the matter at BioLogos is not so flexible on the matter. They believe infants “carry the actual sin of Adam”… and they are so strong in that belief, they cannot even fathom the idea of how the Orthodox denominations can have some other view!
