Roman Catholic and Orthodox differences on Original Sin
In a couple of the last posts there has been an ongoing discussion of the differences in the concept of Original Sin between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So, let me put a couple of citations from the Wikipedia that may help people to see the differences. Why from the Wikipedia? Well, because they are better at summarizing than theologians. 
I am aware that any summary always is insufficient, but sometimes we need summaries rather than details.
Roman Catholic summary
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages. In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine’s view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the “limbo of infants”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” But the theory of Limbo, while it “never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium … remains … a possible theological hypothesis”.
Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin . . .
Eastern Orthodox summary
In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the “perfect” mode of existence of man to the “flawed” mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that “original sin”. All humanity shares in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.
This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.
Related posts:
- Inconsistency in arguing against Roman Catholics
- On Roman Polanski and Catholic priests
- When is a good Orthodox (or Catholic) not a good Orthodox? part 03
- When is a good Orthodox (or Catholic) not a good Orthodox? part 01
- When is a good Orthodox (or Catholic) not a good Orthodox? part 02
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Very interesting. Gotta say I like the Orthodox view better.
Helpful thoughts.
How does the “flaw” impact one’s will and how does it counter Pelagianism? In short, would you please explain more about the “flaw”.
Thanks.
Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and traditional Protestants all agree that a human’s free will is damaged. How much is a matter of argument. However, what it means is that all Christians agree that sooner or later we will all sin. Pelagius taught that human free will is undamaged, so that it is fully possible to live a perfect human life. So, for Pelagius there could be people for whom salvation would not be necessary. This is rejected by all Christians.
In a Protestant statement of the doctrine, the C of E’s XXXIX Articles state that “the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation” and my understanding of Orthodoxy is that, in fact, until we do commit sin we are not deserving “God’s wrath and damnation”. The flesh may be weak, but (as with the Theotokos) we may be held above sin in God’s Grace. As Abba Joseph says, “If you will you may become wholly fire.”
From our Lutheran Confessions ( Augsburg Confession ):
II. [Original Sin]
1 It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers?’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. 2 Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin?2? is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.?
3 Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians? and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ?.
The paragraph quoted doesn’t even address the Catholic conception of original sin. It describes a disputed conclusion made by Augustine over a very real theological question in the West: is Baptism required for salvation? The teaching of one theologian should not be confused with the teaching of the church.
The Catholic teaching on original sin is very close to the Othodox teaching. Contray to what you imply the church does not teach that original sin is a personal sin for people after Adam and Eve. As the Othodox believe, Catholics also believe that impact of the original disobedience was death, sickness and alienation form God. Original sin describes the state of our relationship with God, not a personal act or personal guilt (which the Wikipedia article does mention).
The other post I wrote on this subject led on to quite a discussion. There I quote from a 2007 document approved by Pope Benedict XVI which talks about the changing conception within Roman Catholicism. You are correct that the post-Vatican Council II conception is significantly closer to Orthodoxy than before. The paragraph above summarizes over a thousand years, which is why it can be unclear. However, the 2007 document also clearly says that the Church’s conception was the Augustinian one until a better understanding of revelation developed. Yet, it is that document that also says that limbo is still a possibility. The more modern conception is not that of personal sin but of a missing grace.
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html
I encourage you to read: Ancestral Vs. Original Sin: A False Dichotomy
I would like to read that 2007 document, I’ve never seen it before.
Certainly, the document is called The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. It was approved for publication by the Holy Father on 19 January 2007. It is found on the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html.
I will read the blog post you mention. But, let me point out that I refer to that Vatican-approved document not only because it is the latest official thinking on the whole issue of original sin, limbo, salvation, etc., but also because it contains the acknowledgment that historically the West’s viewpoint was that of original guilt. In fact the document specifically says, “The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine.”