Apologies for a lackluster beginning to this blog. I am still trying to figure out whether or not I have the time to devote to such an endeavor. Just so you all know I’m still around, I did want to post an interesting combox exchange about Saint Augustine and original sin at the Anastasis Dialogue:
The esteemed Pontificator, Father Alvin Kimel, said:
I found the discussion [about original sin on an Eastern Orthodox message board] ecumenically quite discouraging. I am amazed by the continuing polemical charge that the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine of original guilt, i.e., God holds everyone morally responsible for the sin of Adam. It doesn’t matter how many times Catholics protest the caricature, the polemic continues. It appears that the East has nothing to learn from Western theological reflection or spiritual experience.
Ben Mann from Denver replied:
What amazes and saddens me the most about that thread … and similar threads, ad nauseam … is the almost total neglect of Holy Scripture by all parties … Catholics and Orthodox often chide protestants for being ignorant of Sacred Tradition and of the Fathers, and thus having no unity; yet it appears to me that much of the division between eastern and western churches exists because we do not love our own Bible as much as the protestants do. Do we have the humility to temporarily leave off examining Patristic citations and points of history, and attempt to find our common ground in the Scriptures? I am not at all saying that we should start ignoring the Fathers and simply read the Bible. I do think, though, that Orthodox and Catholics become distressingly gridlocked when discussing their apparent disagreements because they are prioritizing Church Councils and Church Fathers over the Church’s own Bible — when in fact we all know that Scripture, Tradition, and Teaching Authority are not even separable. If we have disagreements about a controversial teacher like augustine, why not simply go back to the Scriptures that inspired him? If we think that the “other” tradition overemphasizes one view of sin or salvation, why not return to Scripture and see how it harmonizes several views? I truly think that just as protestants will only find unity by getting over their fear of Tradition and Teaching Authority, the Catholics and Orthodox will only find it by learning to love the Bible as much as the Fathers and Doctors of the Church did.
To which Father Kimel replied:
Ben, I agree with you. I would instance the ecumenical convergence on justification between Lutherans and Catholics as an example of what can happen when fellow believers sit down and prayerfully and patiently read the Scriptures together.
Going to the Scriptures … What a concept! I must confess that this is one of the last things that I do when I contemplate the difficulties and differences between East and West. And yet this is the very first thing that we ought to do, because it is precisely what the Fathers did.
Eirenikon 
Amen!
Eirenikon: I just wanted to respond to the first paragraph, concerning your commitment to maintaining this blog– I pray that you do find the time. I find it to be a tremendous resource and encouragement. Thank you for your efforts!
>The esteemed Pontificator, Father Alvin Kimel, said:
I found the discussion [about original sin on an Eastern Orthodox message board] ecumenically quite discouraging. I am amazed by the continuing polemical charge that the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine of original guilt, i.e., God holds everyone morally responsible for the sin of Adam.
Well, the truth is that there is a lot of western Catholic dogmatic language to support that “polemical” charge. For example, Trent’s “Decree on Original Sin”, paragraph 5, “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ… *the guilt of original sin* is removed… let him be anathema.” Now granted there are nuances even in the language of Trent, but I think that Catholic apologists, rather than hit EOs over the head with charges of misleading polemicism, admit that the post-schism western teaching on original sin is murky, and if Rome really wishes to repudiate any notion of “original guilt” then *it should clearly do so*. Joe
Joe,
If I recall correctly, Father Kimel has dealt with that particular passage of Trent before. Unfortunately, it may have been from a lost post at the old Pontifications.
I don’t think that anyone would deny that “original guilt” has been present for some time in Latin Catholic thinking. I think the point that many Catholic apologists are trying to make is that the RCC has not absolutely committed herself to that particular concept (but your point on Trent is well taken and needs to be explained). I do think it’s significant that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mention the concept of original guilt, and seems to put forward a concept of original sin that should be more compatible with the common Greek view.
The Pope has some very interesting things to say about purgatory in his most recent encyclical. Apparently he’s of the opinion that there are some real difficulties in the development of that particular doctrine. He doesn’t seem to see any problem with jettisoning some of the more questionable language about the intermediate state; why not a fresh look at original sin as well?
Incidentally, today I picked up a very interesting volume: “Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy” by G. M. Lukken (1973). I look forward to reading through it. From what I’ve been able to tell so far, it seems to approach the much criticized Latin take on original sin from a fresh perspective, which might be more intelligible to the Orthodox.
If the Roman church does not teach original guilt, then what is the purpose of the Immaculate Conception. What, if fact, was the Theotokos preserved from? Certainloy we do hold two different understandings of Original Sin, to the point of where we Orthodox are dis-inclined to use the term because of the confusion the term evokes.
If anyone can reolve some of these issues that divide Orthodoxy and Rome, I do believe Pope Benedict can. Has anyone ever read his refutation of Anselm of Canturbury’s Cur Deus Homo? Having to do with the Fall and Redemption?
Fr Gregory,
Re: #5. That’s a good question. To tell the truth, I’ve heard so many versions of what the Orthodox believe about “Original Sin” that I honestly don’t know what to think most of the time.
Re: #6. I share your hope about Pope Benedict. I haven’t read the Pope’s refutation of Anselm. I would love to read it. As I understand, Anselm’s theory has always been exactly that: a theory. It’s never been dogma or the only possible way to understand the Atonement in Roman Catholic theology. Interestingly enough, Anselm does have defenders even in Eastern Orthodoxy. David Bentley Hart and Fr Patrick Henry Reardon come to mind. Both are of the opinion that Anselm has been misinterpreted by fans and critics alike.
Eirenikon
If you send me your email, I will privately send some treatment of the theological dimensions of Original Sin or Ancestral Sin. If you choose to publish it here, I am sure the source would not mind. Let me know.
Fr. Gregory,
Where can we find that piece by BXVI? I would love to read it.
I have to say, though, that there are many promising private statements by both JPII and BXVI, but they haven’t, as yet, translated into magisterial statements. Until that happens, the mainstream theology of the Roman church will remain the same. Joe
Joe,
Dr. Festiggi, Sacred Heart Seminary, made the statement at a liturgical conference I attended at the Josephinum this past October. I’ll try to contact him for more information.
Greetings to all and may God bless you on your endeavours. Forgive what may seem to be an out-of-place intrusion, but I was hoping that someone may assist in shedding some light on a topic of interest. So much is made of the differences between the Greek and Latin views of the Trinity. The Greeks are meant to have stressed the hypostases, wheres the Latins, the essence, Surely this is a gross generalization… surely the Greek Fathers made an issue of the “ousia” as much as Latin Fathers allowed for the “persona”. Can anyone assist with substantiation….
fr. Petros
I’ve heard so many versions of what the Orthodox believe about “Original Sin” that I honestly don’t know what to think most of the time.
In a practical sense, what does it matter what we are saved ‘from’ if we are saved now? My sense of the Orthodox thought on the subject is that it is purposefully hazy given the fact that none of us is able to understand what we were before the Fall according to our nature – apart from visions of Paradise, e.g., Prophet Moses. So, the real issue for the Orthodox is in blocking any attempts to ‘clarify’ the issue beyond what has been received by the Church Universal, not that which has been taught or developed even by Her most eminent parts or a ‘majority’ of her faithful.
I think this filibustering attitude can also be seen in various other aspects of the differences between East and West. I also think that the East is waiting to see if, when and how the West will work out in practive Vatican II’s language around the collegiality of the bishops with the Pope since this is getting at the conciliarity central to Orthodox ecclesiology. Should Rome be able to fully embrace and live this proto-conciliarity – with non-Roman Catholics, as well – as a necessary counterweight and limit to primacy, then perhaps trust will have been reestablished enough to begin to again ‘reason together’ regarding some of these ancient and newer differences in practice and faith so as to discern between development and a deepening of understanding vs. innovation and the ‘traditions of men’.
It is particularly disappointing that the Orthodox first response to a post reflecting on the problem of polemicism is to launch right back into polemicism. It is this fundamental lack of reflection, introspection and mutual respect that causes me to despair of progress between East and West for generations to come.
What divides us more than theology is mutual animosity. “Mutual,” however, is generous as I have never found in Catholicism a parallel for the deeply held anti-Catholicism common among many of the Orthodox.
All doctrine is the fruit of the attempt to express the ineffable. Why cant we learn to cut each other some slack and approach the issues in a generous rather than accusatory fashion?
As long as there is the slightest difference or wrinkle between our theologies we can use it to justify division if we have not first learned to love one another as Christ has loved us.
I see constant acts of generosity on the part of JPII and BXVI toward the East with almost no significant reciprocity on the part of the Orthodox. So I ask do the Orthodox seek unity or not? Do the Orthodox take the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17 seriously or not? The Orthodox are so quick to say what the West “must” change for unity to occur. I have seen narry a single matter in which the Orthodox discuss something on which they can be flexible.
Without some signs of reciprocity this moment of ecumenical generosity on the part of Rome will pass. Among many Catholics online interest in and hope for this diologue has already faded.
I am not playing the prophet or anything, I am just saying what I am seeing.
Greetings:
I recently started a blog to chart my journey into church history and catholicity. I’d be interested in getting feedback from all the readers here.
Thanks!
http://catholicityquestion.wordpress.com
“If the Roman church does not teach original guilt, then what is the purpose of the Immaculate Conception.”
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with a concept of “original guilt.” The common view amongst Catholic theologians since at least the time of St. Anselm (thought it has its roots in patristic theology) is that original sin consists formally in the privation of sanctifying grace. The Holy Mother of God, according to Catholic teaching, never suffered this privation, but from the first instant of her conception was filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. That is what the IC doctrine means.
Ed
Very interesting blog!
I’m reminded that Augustine is considered among the blessed in Eastern Orthodox liturgies.
Several years ago, an Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Michael Akhoul wrote, The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. The book was volume 1 of a planned multi volume endeavor. The book was essentially a hatchet job on Blessed Augustine. He, of course, was roundly admonished by Orthodox clergymen, including Fr. Seraphim Rose. The publisher canceled the series and subsequent volumes have never appeared.