yet another s/o - What is the E/O belief about original sin?

[MamaSheep]

I'm thinking I remember being told that Orthodoxy rejects the teaching of original sin. Is this right, or am I confusing E/O with something else?

 

I'm just curious.

[milovany]

I'm thinking I remember being told that Orthodoxy rejects the teaching of original sin. Is this right, or am I confusing E/O with something else?

 

I'm just curious.

 

 

Here's a start, Amy. It's an article titled, "The View of Sin in the Early Church." EO doesn't ascribe to a doctrine of original sin, but instead a belief in "ancestral sin."

 

First paragraph:

The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin—as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church—and the doctrine of Original Sin — developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions — is explored. The impact of these two formulations on pastoral practice is investigated. It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. It is further posited that the approach of the ancient church points to a more therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling.

 

I read this article when we were converting and remember that it really helped me to see the difference better. I need to re-read it since it's such a paradigm shift!

Edited July 18, 2011 by milovaný

[MamaSheep]

Thanks! I haven't finished reading all of it yet, but from an LDS perspective I'm finding it most intriguing. The LDS take on this is MUCH closer to the Orthodox than the RC one.

 

Would you say this paragraph from the article does a decent job of summing up (realizing, of course that it does not include the more intricate details gone into later in the article)?

 

 

The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

Ok, here are some more bits I find particularly intriguing from an LDS pov.

 

Fallen human life is above all else the failure to realize the God-given potential of human existence, which is, as St. Peter writes, to “become partakers of the divine nature†(II Peter 1:4). St. Basil writes: “Humanity is an animal who has received the vocation to become God†(Clement, 1993, p. 76).

p. 5

 

In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion. The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not “become immortal in sin†(Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil (Romanides, 2002)

p.6

 

The Fall could not destroy the image of God; the great gift given to humanity remained intact, but damaged (Romanides, 2002). Origen speaks of the image buried as in a well choked with debris (Clement, 1993). While the work of salvation was accomplished by God through Jesus Christ the removal of the debris that hides the image in us calls for free and voluntary cooperation. St. Paul uses the word synergy, or “coworkersâ€, (I Corinthians 3:9) to describe the cooperation between Divine Grace and human freedom. For the Orthodox Fathers this means asceticism (prayer, fasting, charity and keeping vigil) relating to St. Paul’s image of the spiritual athlete (I Corinthians 9:24-27). This is the working out of salvation “with fear and trembling†(Philippians 2:12). Salvation is a process involving faith, freedom and personal effort to fulfill the commandment of Christ to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself†(Matthew 22:37-39).

p. 6-7

 

Because of the victory of Christ on the Cross and in

the Tomb humanity has been set free, the curse of the law has been broken, death is slain, life has dawned for all. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 662) writes that “Christ’s death on the Cross is the judgment of judgment†(Clement, 1993, p. 49) and because of this we can rejoice in the conclusion stated so beautifully by Olivier Clement: “In the crucified Christ forgiveness is offered and life is given. For humanity it is no longer a matter of fearing judgment or of meriting salvation, but of welcoming love in trust and humility†(Clement, 1993, p. 49).

p.7

 

The problem—to the Orthodox perspective—is that both Pelagius and Augustine set the categories in the extreme—freedom of the will with nothing left for God versus complete sovereignty of God, with nothing left to human will. The Fathers argued instead for “synergy,†a mystery of God’s grace being given with the cooperation of the human heart.

footnote, p. 8.

 

 

...Drat. Out of time. Off to swim lessons, but will be reading the rest later....

Thanks for the interesting read. :)

[usetoschool]

Thank you for that article! It was interesting to read from an historical perspective (since the schism between east and west has never really crossed my path and I always just had in the back of my mind that it was political with some doctrinal differences mixed in) and was a great way to start my day - with a reminder of our Heavenly Father's mercy and love.

 

I don't think I will compare it to what I believe (as LDS) because the original question was about what you believe but I will add that it is fairly close, doctrinally, which I find really thought provoking. It is all about love and mercy and the atonement and agency and a loving Father wanting us back. Early church fathers (after the death of the last of the apostles) seem to be where the pot began to boil, I think.

[JenniferB]

 

The Ancestral Sin is a book that was recently recommended on one of the social groups regarding this topic.

[mommaduck]

subbing

[mommaduck]

Thanks! I haven't finished reading all of it yet, but from an LDS perspective I'm finding it most intriguing. The LDS take on this is MUCH closer to the Orthodox than the RC one.

 

Would you say this paragraph from the article does a decent job of summing up (realizing, of course that it does not include the more intricate details gone into later in the article)?

 

 

 

 

[/left]

Where is the quote from?

[MamaSheep]

Where is the quote from?

 

Oh! Sorry I was rushing this morning while also pulling breakfast together..lol.

 

I misspoke when I called it a paragraph. It's actually a snippet from the middle of the second paragraph on page 2. It just seemed like a good summary. Maybe.

[MamaSheep]

The Ancestral Sin is a book that was recently recommended on one of the social groups regarding this topic.

 

I don't think I've really got time for a whole book. :( I'm having a hard time making it through a 20 page paper with everything else going on today. And I'm really not looking for in-depth study at this point, just a brief explanation to see if I was remembering correctly. Plus, it's so close (though not identical) to the LDS view that perhaps it's not as much of a paradigm shift for me as it would be for people coming from another background. Thank you, though. :)

[DianeW88]

Wow, thank you for explaining that. It was really interesting.

 

I have a question. I have relatives that are "Greek" Orthodox. Can you help me understand the differences between Greek, Russian, Eastern and all other forms of orthodoxy? Is there a difference or is it just semantics?

 

Thanks!!

[MamaSheep]

Ok, I've finally had a chance to read the rest. Interesting stuff, but I don't think I'll pull anymore quotes out, as the rest mostly deals with the application of the principles in patoral care. (Good thoughts, but not as relevant to my question here.)

 

This was a good explanation, thank you. :)

[mommaduck]

Wow, thank you for explaining that. It was really interesting.

 

I have a question. I have relatives that are "Greek" Orthodox. Can you help me understand the differences between Greek, Russian, Eastern and all other forms of orthodoxy? Is there a difference or is it just semantics?

 

Thanks!!

 

There is none. They are just different jurisdictions. An LDS similarity would be "wards", except these "wards" are based on country. Because the EO came to America through immigrants, there was no "American" jurisdiction. We are in the works on that one though with the OCA. They are all one Church though. There will be a few cultural differences in each, but that is not unusual after long periods of time. The Greeks speak Greek, the Russians speak Russian, the Antiochians speak Arabic, etc. Here in the US, you will find varying amounts of English mixed in throughout the services. The Russians cross their arms, hands at shoulders, during communion...from what I've seen, the Greeks do not (though it's handy to prevent knocking the chalice ;) ). You are more likely to see a headcovering at a Russian or Antiochian parish than at a Greek parish (though some still do). None of these things are Church differences, nor a big deal. They are cultural distinctions only and may even vary here in the US compared to in the home countries.

 

 

The only other forms of Orthodoxy that ARE different would be the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox who accept up to certain councils and reject those councils after the last one they have accepted. However, they are so close we still consider them part to the extent that, in times of economia, we will commune together, etc. We have an Eritrean congregation (Oriental Orthodox) that worships with us, communes with us, but will still have their own service after all of that later. We are working at helping them raise money to build their own church building and eventually acquire their own priest.

Edited July 18, 2011 by mommaduck

[milovany]

Wow, thank you for explaining that. It was really interesting.

 

I have a question. I have relatives that are "Greek" Orthodox. Can you help me understand the differences between Greek, Russian, Eastern and all other forms of orthodoxy? Is there a difference or is it just semantics?

 

Thanks!!

 

Diane, the umbrella term for all the groups you named above (and more) is Eastern Orthodox. This is probably oversimplified, but you can think of it this way: after the Great Schism in A.D. 1054, there were then two churches: the Roman Catholic church (which was under the bishop of Rome) and Eastern Orthodox (all the other jurisdictions in the Christian world). Over time, different cultural expressions of Eastern Orthodoxy developed as the faith moved around the world so there's Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Orthodox Church in America etc., but all are still Eastern Orthodox. Our faith is the same across these jurisdictions; the differences are mainly cultural. Our parish is Antiochian, but I could commune in a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or OCA church -- we consider all these one church. Does that help?

 

ETA -- mommaduck is so much more succinct than me!

ETA -- okay, mommaduck added a bit more (great!) info, so she's not as succinct as she once was, LOL. ;-)

Edited July 18, 2011 by milovaný

[MamaSheep]

Diane, the umbrella term for all the groups you named above (and more) is Eastern Orthodox. This is probably oversimplified, but you can think of it this way: after the Great Schism in A.D. 1054, there were then two churches: the Roman Catholic church (which was under the bishop of Rome) and Eastern Orthodox (all the other jurisdictions in the Christian world). Over time, different cultural expressions of Eastern Orthodoxy developed as the faith moved around the world so there's Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Orthodox Church in America etc., but all are still Eastern Orthodox. Our faith is the same across these jurisdictions; the differences are mainly cultural. Our parish is Antiochian, but I could commune in a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or OCA church -- we consider all these one church. Does that help?

 

ETA -- mommaduck is so much more succinct than me!

 

What kind of cultural difference would one notice if she were to visit the different variations?

[mommaduck]

What kind of cultural difference would one notice if she were to visit the different variations?

 

I named a few in my post above :)

 

I've been in a few different ones. I attend a Greek parish, with an Eritrean congregation mixed in. I've been to a Serbian parish, and I believe a Russian one (?) I've also been to an old calendar Greek parish for a festival. There really isn't much difference. If you go to one, you can be comfortable and follow along in another (as the services are the same, just different primary or secondary language). The main thing that may change is the feel or the natural personalities of the people within the congregation. Different cultures behave differently. Greeks are pretty in your face, tell you what they think, down to earth and huggy-kissy, jovial kind of people. The Serbians seemed much milder to me. I hear the Antiochians are pretty huggy also (we know someone that attends the one in the next county).

Edited July 18, 2011 by mommaduck

[Little Nyssa]

Here's one cultural difference: most of the music used in the services will be different, reflecting a different national style.

The theology will be the same.

[DianeW88]

Thanks! That does help. Since my childhood, I've wondered why my Slovakian relatives worshipped at a Greek Orthodox church (made up of other Slovakian people) when there wasn't a person of Greek descent anywhere in sight in their neck of the woods. :lol: I figured the terminology must be just that...terminology and that the church was simply Eastern Orthodox.

[mommaduck]

Thanks! That does help. Since my childhood, I've wondered why my Slovakian relatives worshipped at a Greek Orthodox church (made up of other Slovakian people) when there wasn't a person of Greek descent anywhere in sight in their neck of the woods. :lol: I figured the terminology must be just that...terminology and that the church was simply Eastern Orthodox.

 

Exactly. It may have been started years ago by a small Greek immigrant congregation. The Slovakians may have immigrated, moved in, and worshipped at the most convenient Orthodox Church in the area...and it just happened to be Greek.

[MamaSheep]

Are there many differences in architecture? I know that's neither here nor there theologically, it's my art history classes from college kicking in. :)

[MamaSheep]

I named a few in my post above :)

 

I've been in a few different ones. I attend a Greek parish, with an Eritrean congregation mixed in. I've been to a Serbian parish, and I believe a Russian one (?) I've also been to an old calendar Greek parish for a festival. There really isn't much difference. If you go to one, you can be comfortable and follow along in another (as the services are the same, just different primary or secondary language). The main thing that may change is the feel or the natural personalities of the people within the congregation. Different cultures behave differently. Greeks are pretty in your face, tell you what they think, down to earth and huggy-kissy, jovial kind of people. The Serbians seemed much milder to me. I hear the Antiochians are pretty huggy also (we know someone that attends the one in the next county).

 

Ok...so most of the differences people would notice would be in language, music, and things like head coverings and hand positions during various portions of the service? And the service would proceed with the same...events(for lack of terminology...lol)...in the same order performed in pretty much the same way. Is that right?

[mommaduck]

Are there many differences in architecture? I know that's neither here nor there theologically, it's my art history classes from college kicking in. :)

 

On iconography (due to art classes ;) ) no. Iconographers are trained and there are specific do's and don't's in iconography. There is a theology behind the icons.

 

The architecture, yes from country to country. Less so in the US I believe. And some parishes are buying or renting other church buildings, so they would not have an "Orthodox" style to start with.

 

Inside there are a few things that you will find in variations, but the same. Excluding rented buildings, there is always an icon of Christ in the centre of the roof. There is an icon of the Theotokos and Christ-child behind the iconostasis. There is an iconostasis at the front of the sanctuary. There will be an icon of Christ and an icon of the Theotokos in the nave...along with whichever icon is appropriate for that day or season. There is always a sandpit of some sort for candles. There is also a separate, either candle stand or candle holders, place for candles specifically for those that have passed. Sanctuaries are supposed to face East (doesn't always happen for various reasons).

[mommaduck]

Ok...so most of the differences people would notice would be in language, music, and things like head coverings and hand positions during various portions of the service? And the service would proceed with the same...events(for lack of terminology...lol)...in the same order performed in pretty much the same way. Is that right?

 

I think hand positions are always the same (in front of you, not behind you), other than possibly putting them across your shoulders for communion. But yes, the minors would vary and the service would be the same :)

[naturalmom]

Thanks for sharing this - I need to come back and read it more thoroughly later when I have more time.

 

I really liked this, though:

"Daily sins are more than moral infractions; they are revelations of

the brokenness of human life and evidence of personal struggle."

 

The last couple of years I've gone to the tour of the church that they have at the local Greek festival. They have been SO informative - telling a lot of the history, explaining the icons, and much of the faith, along with some of the differences between east and west.

 

I'd love to read more on specific topics, like the one you've provided. If there's anything else that you found helpful to read before converting, things that explain a different viewpoint, etc., I'd love recommendations!

[Caitilin]

If you have the time, try At the Intersection of East and West podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio (ancientfaith.com). It is a wealth of info, specially for those who come out of the Protestant tradition. There are lots of other great ones there too, but that one is really good as a starter.:001_smile:

[milovany]

And the book Light From The Christian East (written by a reformed pastor, James Payton) is excellent. The author is writing from a Protestant perspective, but gives a very good, respectful picture of the east/west differences.

[MamaSheep]

There is also a social group here http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/group.php?groupid=112 where you can go to find more references and to ask questions of Orthodox Christians.

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

 

Thanks. :)

 

I was mostly just checking my memory regarding the teaching on original sin. Someone had asked about the LDS perspective on Eden and it got me to thinking about other points of view I'd heard on the subject from various sources, and I wasn't certain I was remembering correctly about the Orthodox perspective. I'm not really sure I remember hearing details before, just that Orthodoxy doesn't hold with the idea of original sin as taught in many other Christian faiths. So it was good to get more info.