Talk:Original sin

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Terms)
m (Terms)
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
For someone simple, like myself, this article does not clearly differentiate its Orthodox basis from its non-Orthodox basis ... I hope somoene who is fluent in writing could create a new article called "[[Ancestoral Sin]]" to which a clearly Orthodox definition is provided and this article is re-worded to clearly state the Catholic definition and that the term is not Orthodox.
 
For someone simple, like myself, this article does not clearly differentiate its Orthodox basis from its non-Orthodox basis ... I hope somoene who is fluent in writing could create a new article called "[[Ancestoral Sin]]" to which a clearly Orthodox definition is provided and this article is re-worded to clearly state the Catholic definition and that the term is not Orthodox.
  
I hope a simple split like this could save a lot of us "simpler" readers the confusion.
+
I hope a simple split like this could save a lot of us "simpler" readers the confusion and the necessasity to debate the difference between the body of ONE article? :-)
  
 
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:52, November 28, 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:52, November 28, 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:09, November 27, 2008

Terms

Hello, "Original Sin" has its origins in Augustine who bases his theology on a bad latin translation of Romans 5:12 and who the Catholic church have based a lot of their theology; the great fathers of the church in Augustine's time would call this the "Ancestoral Sin" and of course there are major theological differences between the two.

This OW article does not really differentiate this point within the first paragraph - which allows for a misconception that the term "Original Sin" is an Orthodox term when it clearly is not ...

For someone simple, like myself, this article does not clearly differentiate its Orthodox basis from its non-Orthodox basis ... I hope somoene who is fluent in writing could create a new article called "Ancestoral Sin" to which a clearly Orthodox definition is provided and this article is re-worded to clearly state the Catholic definition and that the term is not Orthodox.

I hope a simple split like this could save a lot of us "simpler" readers the confusion and the necessasity to debate the difference between the body of ONE article? :-)

Vasiliki 01:52, November 28, 2008 (UTC)

difference

Affirm that there is a difference between the orthodox conception of orthodox sin and the roman catholic one, wrongly understood as the men would inherit the Adam's guilty, is a form of modernism heresy. There is no difference, as Roman Catholic Catecism confirm:

" 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. (...)

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

Having been exposed that, the wrong affirmation of the article was deleted.

--Philippe Gebara 15:56, February 13, 2007 (PST)Philippe Gebara

It would seem better instead to correct, rather than to delete. As the article stands now, the paragraph regarding the definition of RC doctrine comes out of nowhere. In any event, many Orthodox scholars are of the opinion that the RC and Protestant teachings differ from the Orthodox one, and since original sin is such a widely known theological concept among English-speakers, it would seem appropriate to include such information in the article rather than simply deleting it. Perhaps some of the many links included might be used as a basis for a correction and expansion of the article. As such, I've reverted the deletion and added the expert tag. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 07:24, February 14, 2007 (PST)


Dear Father Andrew, but I corrected... deleting and posting the Catholic Cathecism's passage! By the way, do you want to know more about the Roman Catholic Church than the Cathecism of the Catholic Church itself? It is more than clear that RC original sin's view is wrong in the article. Thank you! --Philippe Gebara 13:22, May 8, 2007 (PDT)Philippe Gebara

I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to step in here. Actually, I agree with Philippe -- it's better to delete misleading information like this than have it linger, though I agree with Fr. Andrew that this really needs to be expanded. This article, BTW, was recently linked on Yahoo Answers. — FrJohn (talk) 17:42, September 16, 2007 (PDT)

Rollback

I rolled back the recent revision because the argument was not clear with regard to "only Adam was personally responsible for his own sin" in Catholic teaching. It seems like an attempt to reassert a polemic, but is not well-enough rooted in actual RC teaching. — FrJohn (talk)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox