The Argument of Ancestral sin vs Original sin

When I first started studying Byzantine theology I was deceived. I believed in a false tradition called Ancestral Sin. The term itself is not false, many fathers use the term. What is false is how some Eastern Christians have used it in the past 50yrs. The term at some point was hijacked by a tradition of apologetics that is based in the Orthodox Church. It’s now used to contrast what is called Original sin, which is said to be an invention of St. Augustine. The argument states: “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 problem with this argument is that it’s totally dishonest.

The dishonesty for this argument is found in the assumptions it makes. First, there is the huge assumption that the argument represent all of the Eastern Church. As I said, the argument represents a tradition of apologetics and not the Eastern Church. Next, there is the assumption that the Western Church was the only one to have a doctrine of inherited guilt. It’s true that St. Augustine developed “original guilt” far more systemically than any Church Father in the West. On the other hand, even the noted Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware himself admitted “the notion of an inherited sinfulness can be found, at any rate in a rudimentary form, in more than one Greek writer”. Last of all, there is the assumption that the Western Church had only one way of understanding sin. It might be true that St. Augustine played a major role in the catechesis of the West, but this catechesis was by no means universal. In fact, the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church leaves the notion of inherited guilt total open. In terms of inherited guilt, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following, “the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand(404)”.

This dishonest argument is usually further exaggerated with the following distinctions: “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”. When I hear Eastern Christians make these distinctions it makes me wonder why they are ignoring so many Greek Fathers. For example, St. Gregory Palamas had this to say about the so called shift to “human guilt and Divine wrath” , which is not the “ancient church”: “Yet God is also a 'jealous God' (Exod. 20:5), a just judge who takes terrible vengeance on those who dishonor Him, who disobey Him and who scorn His commandments, visiting them with eternal chastisement, unquenchable fire, unceasing pain, unconsolable affliction, a cloak of lugubrious darkness, an obscure and grievous region, piteous gnashing of teeth, venomous and sleepless worms - things He prepared for that first evil apostate together with all those deluded by him who became his followers, rejecting their Creator in their actions, words and thoughts”. This quote was taken right of the Philokalia, the most beloved book for the so-called, “therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling”.

The biggest problem I see with people that promote “Ancestral sin vs Original sin” is that they are creating a false dichotomy between the Eastern and Western traditions of the Church. On the subject of sin the fathers of the Church had diverse positions. This diversity is witnessed in the many forms of catechesis that can be found in Church history. Its even possible, as St. John Paul the Great said, to have one tradition of catechesis express the mysteries of our faith better than others. With this in mind, we should take advantage of the different forms of theological expression in the Church. Just like what the Roman church did when it changed its catechesis on sin, which now reflects what is emphasized in the Byzantine churches.  The Roman church’s current catechesis on the effects of sin now fits more organically into their tradition as opposed to the Augustine views of the past. Like the Roman church, we should discover what best helps our own tradition organically develop. Not by seeing how we are not like the other, but by truly learning how to “breathe with both lungs” of the Church.

The Roman Apologist and the Uniate

The Catholic Church of our day is being dominated by the culture of “Roman” apologetics. I say “Roman” because the ethos of the modern Catholic apologist is built around the Pope and the superiority of Rome’s theological tradition. I’m sure this type of apologetics is helpful when someone like Jack Chick knocks on your door. However, it is totally unhelpful when it comes to the relationship between Rome and the Eastern churches. Rome’s theological and ecclesiological traditions are not the superior models for the rest of the Church. When they are presented in this fashion they are actually contradicting the official relationship that Rome has established with the Eastern churches.

Back in 2016 Pope Francis said that Catholics should not convert Eastern Orthodox Christians. He basically said it would be a grave sin against the ecumenical relationship we have with the Eastern churches. By saying what he did, he sent a shockwave through the culture of Roman apologetics. I recall reading all kinds of wild explanations of what the pope really meant or just how wrong he is, with of course the explanation of papal infallibility to reassure the apologetics community that the pope can be wrong. Unfortunately, the people writing these things failed to see that their version of Catholicism does not represent the Roman church on the official level.

This wasn’t the first time the pope upset the culture of Roman apologetics. In 2014 he said to an Orthodox church, “to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith”. Like in the other instance, what he said here was immediately opposed. However, what some in this culture got right was that this was not always the case. There was a time when Rome called for conversion to reach unity. The historical sins that led to the schism between the East and West brought about a pseudo-tradition, which was Rome believing it was the only Church. Consequently, the idea of the “uniate” church came out of this pseudo-tradition. To this very day, the “uniate” churches have been the bane of many Ecumenical talks between Rome and the Orthodox churches. On the other hand, unbeknown to many the so called “uniates” have been the greatest blessing to these churches.

There will be no more uniate churches. This is the official position of the Roman church, as witnessed in the comments of the pope and also in what is known as the Balamand Document. As a so called “uniate” I believe that my church has a special place in the history of the Church. As Fr. David Bird once expressed, “the "uniate" churches, under the Providence of God, are not so much a means of outreach by the Catholic Church to the Orthodox to convert them, but they are really a means by which the eastern interpretation of our Faith can reach the understanding of the predominantly western mind of the Catholic Church.  They are being used by the Spirit as a means of bending the western understanding of the Catholic Faith to understand the Eastern expression of the same faith”.  As he says, I believe Eastern Catholics have a special role in helping others to discover a theological diversity that can once again be realized in the Church.

Like what Fr. David expressed, the retired Patriarch Gregory III, of the Melkite Catholic church once said that the Eastern Catholics need to help “the Western mentality to mature”.  Its no secret that there is still the mentality to convert us and to convert the Orthodox. To tolerate us as Eastern as long as it conforms to what is being expressed in the culture of “Roman” apologetics. I believe apologetics can be beneficial but not when it’s based on the pseud-tradition of Rome being superior. When speaking about the Eastern Catholic churches Pope Benedict XVI once said, “the union they have already achieved with the Church of Rome must not cause the Eastern Catholic Churches to lose an awareness of their own authenticity and originality”. What he is saying here is something we need to strive for. I believe the future of the Church depends on that.

Being Orthodox in Communion with Rome

My common response to those that ask me where I go to church is that I belong to an Eastern Orthodox church that’s part of the Catholic Church. Its just a quick response to what sometimes would be a long conversation. I understand that this might not be acceptable to some but its an easy way to describe my tradition. On the other hand, is it far from the truth?

My church came into communion with the Roman church as an Orthodox church. For those that oppose this description I would like to know what does it mean to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian? Is it the prayers? The fasts? The theology? Is it a staunch ecclesiological philosophy  that opposes Rome? The reason why I ask is because the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence.

I have seen people convert out of my church to the Orthodox church and I have been personally told that I need to convert. I want to know what is needed to convert to? I don’t understand? I don’t live any differently than what’s traditionally practiced at other Orthodox churches. In addition, my church (Ruthenian) was started by the Apostles to the Slavs, Sts. Cyril and Methodius. My church never broke off from another church when it entered into communion with Rome and I don’t think there was ever any intention to sever ties with Constantinople.

My church’s union was a product of the times, a political move, but one that ensured that our spiritual traditions stayed intact. Just as we did 500yrs ago we recite the same creed and celebrate the same liturgy that was given to us from Constantinople. So, what is it that I should leave behind? How will converting change me. Sure, I won’t have to put up with Latinizing Catholics that portray the pope as our roman task master. The truth be told these people rarely  exist at the parish level. Even historically, when latinizers tried to have their way in our churches there was always a resistance.  

Most people in our parishes are just concerned with how they can follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, as I am. Is there something better to gain in that regard? If there is, I would gladly convert. On the other hand, as I see it I am an Orthodox Christian that’s in communion with Rome. I am living faithfully the Constantinopolitan tradition. No one can take that from me. As the Melkite Patriarch Gregorios III once proclaimed, “We are an Orthodox church with the little or big plus of communion with Rome”. I believe the same thing about my church.

I don’t believe the grass is greener on the other side. This kind of thinking in my opinion is diabolical and needs to end. It gives you the sense you will get something, but in reality you get nothing. Its a false hope that replaces what’s really needed, which is surrendering ones whole life to Christ. So, don’t expect me to convert anytime soon. I have found Jesus Christ in my church, in the people, and in our traditions. There is no other place Id rather be.