Original Sin, Grace, Immaculate Conception, and the East

[Markie Boy]

The problem is some Eastern Catholics follow the separated EOs wherever they go, rather than maintaining the faith that was common to the two at the time of the unia.  Until very recently, the EOs understood original sin just as we do, while their modern position says we are all "immaculately conceived," but subject only to death and other infirmities.  Their current position is more of a symptom of the modern neo-Palamite movement that has come to dominate most of their churches, which includes a general anti-Latin element, with special disdain for anything associated with St. Augustine.  But original sin was never a point of debate at the Second Council of Lyons or the Council of Florence, when equally and even less substantial points were.

For example, they professed our understanding at their Council of Jerusalem in 1672:
http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized.

Here’s an old Catechism that was used for a long time in the EO world--it even uses the word "guilt" in reference to original sin, which is anathema to modern EOs (neither of us considered this "guilt" the same species as a personal "culpa" due to actual sin, and Catholics still don't despite modern EO straw-man polemics):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029363094/page/n6

Question 20.
What is Original Sin ?

Answer.

Original Sin is the Transgression of that Law of God which was given to Adam, the Father of all Men, in these "Words {Gen. ii. 17), Of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shall not eat ; for in the Day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die. This original Sin spreadeth over all human Nature ; forasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. Wherefore by one Adam Sin hath passed into us all. And we are conceived and born with this Blemish, as the Scripture teacheth us {Rom. v. 12), By one Man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin ; and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned. This hereditary Sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any Repentance what-ever, but only by the Grace of God, through the Work of Redemption, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, in taking upon him our Flesh and pouring out his precious Blood. And this is done in the Mystery of holy Baptism; and whosoever is not a Partaker thereof, such an one remains unabsolved from his Sin, and continueth in his Guilt, and is liable to the eternal Punishment of the divine Wrath : As it is said {John iii. 5), Verily, verily, I say unto you, that except a Man be horn of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

(The approval of this Catechism by the four traditional EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, states: "this book is in perfect accordance with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and with the sacred Canons; that it contains nothing contrary to the Church: and we declare, assembled in Synod, that every pious and orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Apostolic Church of the East, ought to read this book, and not to reject it.).

Always so much to learn!  Thank you for adding to this thread.  It's something when people share their opinions - but it's really another when they reference actual documents that show how things were, like old Catechism.

Very much appreciated.

I probably have done some learning from some overly anti-Latin Eastern influence.  I truly enjoy things like this!

Thanks!

[Florus]

Great post SaintSebastian. The current trend of anti-Latin neo-Palamism is really the only thing I find truly offputting about Orthodoxy (other than the fact they aren't Catholic of course). 

While I've never seriously considered leaving the Church, I was at one time very troubled by many Orthodox claims and began searching more deeply into questions regarding the schism. And oddly enough, what really made me more sure of the Catholic faith was hearing the vitriol many Orthodox people attack Augustine's theology with, many to the point of claiming that he is the reason for the current godlessness of the Western world. The Orthodox did not think in this way until fairly recently, which is ironic considering the illusion many Orthodox people have that the Orthodox church is identical in every way to the ancient Church.