Does the Greek Orthodox Church Believe in Original Sin? | Greek Orthodoxy Fact vs Fiction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ม.ค. 2019
- Does the Greek Orthodox Church believe in the concept of Original Sin? Plus, are women barred from attending church or receiving communion during menstruation?
Hosted by Father Angelo Maggos of the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church of Rochester, NY.
Please subscribe and visit our website for more information about our Church and upcoming events! If you have any questions about the Greek Orthodox faith that you would like to see explored, let us know in the comments below!
►►►SUBSCRIBE: / @annunciationorthodox
Website: annunciationrochester.org/
Facebook: / annunciationrochester
Recorded & Edited by Demos Euclid
demoseuclid.com
Interviewer: Jordan Nerissa
www.jordannerissa.com/
Drone Footage by Spiros Kapatos
Forever Fotographia
Minstrel by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
#GreekOrthodox #Greek #Christian
Every time I hear the Orthodox position on just about any theological issue, I feel comforted. It seems like everything I struggled with when I was discerning Catholicism, and everything I was taught at my Protestant preschool that I found problematic as I started growing up, the Orthodox Church has an answer that makes sense in the light of the Scripture, as well as the history of our faith (going from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant). The dogma of original sin, even historically, always felt strange to me, as its absence from the Old Covenant seem to imply we would have gained it under the New Covenant. Yes we inherit the propensity to be sinful, but we do not inherit the individual sins.
I truly believe I came home when I decided to become Orthodox. Throughout my process of learning more and more about the faith over these past several years it has been a constant process of getting clear answers where before I was left in confusion. Everything I have learned has served to further reaffirm that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church.
The Lord be praised that this is where my journey took me. I have found a peace I've never known before, gained a foundation I never felt before.
I am Catholic. Your theology is liberating.
We'd welcome you into the church
I was Roman Catholic, now happily Orthodox. God bless.
be aware, this man is totally twisting catholic teaching - which is identical to the orthodox
When the Orthodox say we inherit the sin of Adam and Eve we mean the fallen world condition that they created not their sin.
Fr Maggos is an oasis of wisdom, always conveying the orthodox view so elegantly, without going on foerever to argue a point to exhaustion.
Thank you very much! We try our best!
The idea of original sin is not black and white in Judaism. Also, what sins would an infant have made by the time baptism and Chrismation?
Early Christians were baptized often as adults. Today, the meaning of baptism for infants is understood as initiation into the life of the Church.
The Ethiopian orthodox church prohibited women to take Holy communion during the menses period not because of the church belief they are unclean,because of the church belief that only christ blood should be seen in the church.
Thanks so much for this series of teaching videos on this channel. So helpful.
Happy to hear GO does not believe in OS. Those of us in Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Church do not believe in original sin either. Thanks for the info!
I guess the Council of Carthage in 411, the canons of which were added to the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, therefore making them universal, means nothing then?
All precepts of man mean absolutely nothing.
uh-oh!
orthodox clergy in the West present the orthodox doctrines with rather variable geometry, in view to more effectively propagandizing the idea that orthodoxy is truer and better than catholicism...
ecumenical councils only have authority when it suits the interests of anti-Latin propaganda
Father, a few times over the years I have absent-mindedly taken communion “that-time-of-the-month”. My mother raised me “NOT TO”. On those occasions, due to my guilty conscience (even though I can completely attribute it to “forgetfulness”), I have approached the priests. They’ve ALL responded in an ALIKE manner, and said the following, “Since you didn’t do it intentionally you are forgiven, but try to be aware of it in the future & don’t take communion when you have your period.” Both “NEW” & “OLD” calendar priests have told me the same thing. This is the FIRST time I hear a priest CONTRADICTING this rule. Thank you for your videos. Watching from Montreal. 🙏
he is also contradicting the Tradition of the Church in this video
@@01ombladon Cosmin, ai putea sa ma ajuti cu niste referinte din traditia bisericii ortodoxe in privinta asta? Multumesc!
There are parishes that are more strict in following ancient tradition and those that are less strict. I prefer more strict ones and go to those parishes. Question of Communion during "the time" is related to the fact that we do not want to waste Body and Blood of Christ we consume. If one is bleeding, obviously some of it will get lost. Attending the church is somewhat different. In ancient times due to the lack of modern methods... women were told not to come not because they we unclean but because there would be an obvious spill on the floor. Nowadays it is different and sisters can come no problems there.
As a Protestant I’m struggling to feel where the power of the Gospel is in the Orthodox Church. It seems watered down. Where does the power of the blood come into it. If there was no curse during the fall then why did Jesus need to die to break the curse ?
If there is no original sin in Orthodoxy, how to Orthodoxs answer the question „Why do some babies have to suffer if God loves them?“
Physical suffering and spiritual suffering have little to do with each other. Just because someone physically suffers, doesn't mean their spirit does.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 - I do not understand how American Christians are so confused. They must think that the real world does not exist.
Jesus loves u
Interesting, never knew this. Plus the young women interviewing sort of reminds me of a Greek AOC, the politician from NY city.
I'm protestant and I always believed that we didn't actually inherit the sin of Adam but only the fallen world. Where I get that idea if they taught we actually inherit there sin. That never made sense to me that we would inherit sin we didn't commit. We are made in the image of God
complete subversion of catholic teaching about original sin: catholics don't sustain that men inherit sin in the sense of personal sin, but in the sense of a tendency to sin that separates us from communion with God - in fact, the catholic and orthodox churches have basically the same views on that doctrine
I'm just starting to explore the Orthodox objection to original sin. So far, I've heard objections to it, but not a clear articulation of the Orthodox position on sin, the sinful nature, why we have it, why we need to be saved, etc. My limited impression so far is that this is a splitting hairs sort of debate. It doesn't seem to me that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are saying very different things. I would agree that we don't bare the guilt of Adam's personal sin. But it was because of Adam's sin that all were made sinners, as the Scriptures say. We inherited a corrupted nature that is bent toward sin, not naturally in harmony with God and the ways of God. Therefore, we all sin and are in need of salvation. That's what it sounds like the Orthodox are saying. But I understand the Catholics, at least today, to be saying that as well. It seems like earlier articulations of OS (i.e. Augustine?) were more direct in saying that we bare Adam's guilt. Anyway, I am very intrigued by the Orthodox church. But so far, I find many of their objections to Catholic teaching to be splitting hairs.
I will say this (I'm a protestant BTW). The Immaculate conception strikes me as unnecessary, as does the perpetual virginity of Mary. I just don't see what about a woman having relations with her husband and having other children makes her less than pure, or less holy.
I agree with you to the original sinn issue. Of course we were born "sinners" through our weak nature from our forefathers - Adam and Eve. Hence the need to be baptized and myrrh anointed in order to receive the purifying Holy Spirit in ourselves.
To the issue of the Mother of our Lord Jesus. Only a divine intervention could lead to the conception of Jesus as a God and a man and as our Saviour. That is precisely the miracle that is surrounding the first coming of our Lord. It can not be anything else. Mary - our Panagia, all Holy in the greek orthodox faith, is the most pure and blessed amongst all women since he was the chosen one to bear Jesus our Saviour. She was brought up since the age of three in the temple of God and was destined to give birth to the Son of God, one of the three components of the Holy Trinity!
For a woman in marriage to bear children in the physical, normal way, it's not a commitment of a sin.
Mary was specifically chosen so Immaculate Conception makes sense
I might be able to help. It's biblical. Marys' womb is seen as the Holy of Holies in the temple. Where only the high priest could enter. When he entered, no man would enter afterward. If I remember correctly.
Some things do seem as splitting hairs. Where no matter what, the basics of forming close relationships and doing good when it's in ones hands remains.
Agreed (as a protestant btw)
@@apapa5495 All of that makes sense. Mary's conception of Jesus was, of course, miraculous, and not of human relations. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Totally agree. But why is it necessary that she never had sex with Joseph after having Jesus, and thus never had other children? Why would her perpetual virginity be necessary? I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm open to it being true. I was just raised without being taught that so its foreign to me, and I don't see it explicit in Scripture, though I know there are versus and analogies in Scripture that are used to infer it, but they seem weak to me honestly. I've heard great analogies of her womb as the holy of holies, Mary as the new arc of the covenant, etc. Beautiful analogies. But analogies alone don't do it for me. I can find an analogy to anything I want without the conclusion being true. The fact that it's such an old belief in the church carries weight to me though. I just don't see why Catholics and Orthodox are so sure of it and why it matters.
P.S. I firmly believe that we on the protestant side of Christianity should give Mary much more honor than we do. I believe referring to her as the Mother of God is theologically correct. I can accept her as chief of the saint, and our greatest intercessor. I'm not opposed to the immaculate conception or her perpetual virginity. They're just head scratchers for me.
So help me as I'm a catechumen...I know that Scripture tells us that in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1Cor 15:22)....isn't that speaking about original sin or ancestral sin?
There is a difference between being born guilty of sin (the mainstream view) and being born with the propensity to sin (the Orthodox view). One might argue that Adam and Eve were created as sinless beings but their propensity to sin led them to eat the forbidden fruit. So even if we are born sinless the temptation to sin is always present in our world.
@Jonathan Williams So nice of you to point that out brother.
The Orthodox Church believes in inherited guilt. Check out the Council of Carthage canon 110 (made eccumemical at the 6th council), the council of Jerusalem Decree 18, and the book "Our Orthodox Faith" on Original Sin. The modern view is from Romanides, and rejects inherited guilt. That is not what the Church has proclaimed. Let's stick with what we have on the books.
Devin Lawson ....... so what about this Priest and what he just said?
@@theclassic6198 it's not accurate. I have actually left the Eastern Orthodox Church over this issue. The modern Orthodox reject/redefine the doctrine of OS. Not my cup of tea.
why are you guys baptizing babies if you dont believe in original sin?
@Telosbound ok so where the hell did this come from is this like orthodox lite?
@@jackiemurphy3639 - Babies are baptised to be initiated to the body of the Christian Church, through which all may be saved from sins they commit after birth by their thoughts and actions, not from the sins committed by someone they have not even met or by the first living organism. In being born human, there is the propensity for sin but the baby has not done anything right or wrong yet.
@@NicholasAggelopoulos - Then if we can be saved by our thoughts and actions, why is there a need for Jesus?
What does “the sins of our fathers” mean?
It means we inherit the consequences of the sins of our ancestors.
To put it simply, if your parents are gamblers and someone else's parents are God-fearing, virtuous people, you're gonna have a different circumstances.
We don't inherit the guilt of Adam, but we do inherit the nature that has fallen due to his sin.
@@user-ii3zs2gr6u Which is a sinful nature that we inherit, right? We all suffer concupiscence because of Adam And Eve.
@@user-ii3zs2gr6u We certainly inherit the guilt of Adam, not that we are culpable for his personal sin, but in an ontological way. We are born into sin and separated from God. Paul says "we were made sinners" on account of Adam. We are "in" Adam just as we can be "in" Christ, the new Adam, for redemption. If you believe you can be part of the "body of Christ" in redemption, why do you think you are not part of Adam before you are redeemed? You are his child, so you inherit his lack of standing before God. Have you never sinned? Know anyone who hasn't? Then you agree you were "made sinners" on account of Adam. How can one be a sinner without guilt? And since baptism wipes away the guilt as well as the punishment for Original sin along with that of all personal sins, why reject the doctrine of the Church?
@@MillionthUsername - We are born into a family or tribe and that is the sense of Ancestral Sin or the "sin of our fathers". We also inherit the propensity for sin through Adam - not the sin of Adam. As biological beings, we are prone to error, but we have not yet intentionaly acted as to commit errors as infants. There needs to be a capacity for independent thought and action by an individual before the potentiality of sin may actualise. An infant has not sinned. It is born with the propensity for sin. Baptism is the initiation into the body of the Church, though which as thinking adults we may be saved from our sins e.g. through observing the Great Commandment, repentance, etc.
@@NicholasAggelopoulos I'm pretty sure that the Council of Trent says that Adam's sin is in us and is our own, although I can't think of the exact wording right now. We are born into a state of sin. We are born at enmity with God on account of Adam. We need redemption. No one (infants included) can enter the Kingdom without being born again of water and the Spirit, as the Lord infallibly taught. Original Sin is a deprivation, the lack of sanctifying grace in the soul, so without baptismal grace (the Lord's remedy for our condition), we remain in that state of sin. Since there is no other state of the soul other than being in sin or being in grace, we must be in sin at birth because we need the redemption of Christ to be applied to us in order to save us.
I admit I do not have an expert understanding of whatever controversy between the Church and the Orthodox there may be on this issue, but I know that we understand Original Sin as a fallen state which requires a remedy. It's not just that the infant has not sinned personally yet; it's that they are born into a fallen race. Scripture describes clearly a parallel between Adam and Christ, so apparently God sees us as "in Adam" when we come into the world just as He sees us "in Christ" when we are redeemed. These two men are our heads. Adam is the head of the human race having put all of us into a fallen condition of sin, requiring the intervention of the Second Adam, Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the new head of the human race to redeem us.
I don't know the finer points of the Orthodox view, or even if there is one coherent unified view. I remember addressing someone who said that Catholics teach inherited sin, but this misses the point regarding Original Sin. Since infants don't have personal sin, what they "inherit" from Adam is the lack of grace when then effectively means a state of sin, a state of alienation from God. This is man's natural state, so I don't know why anyone would argue against it except that they object to saying "inherit," but from what I understand it is not Adam's person sin or his personal responsibility that we inherit, but that by his decision and acting as our head he put all of us into sin.
2:49 - we are baptized for the removal of sins. What sins have babies committed in the Greek Orthodox church ?
Father will be answering this question in tonight's Orthodoxy Questions Answered live show!
@@annunciationorthodox Thank you
@@annunciationorthodox Can anyone share the response video ?
I guess they are baptized so to become a part of the Church and receive the Holy Spirit.
We are created clean, we are created pure" So he says, yet Paul writes to believers to remind them:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by NATURE children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead [f]in our transgressions, made us alive together ]with Christ (by grace you have been saved), Ephesians 2:1-5
By nature (not just practice) we were children of wrath even as the rest. Paul also tells us that "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) If death is the judicial "wages" paid out by sin, how do you account for the death of unborn babies? If they had no sin they would not have died. But their sin is not from their own thoughts or actions, because they haven't even had the opportunity to sin yet. So from whence comes the guilt of sin for which they are receiving wages? It is Adam's guilt imputed to them.
By the way, for those who deny the idea that one person's guilt can be imputed to another, then how explain Jesus' death on the cross? He certainly wasn't dying for sins he committed. He was dying for MY sins that God imputed to him. For the believer, God imputes his/her guilt to Jesus on the cross, and imputes Jesus' righteousness to them when they trust him. This becomes ours the moment we trust in Christ's death for the payment of our sins. That is the "good news" . Soli Deo Gloria.
"
Do you think that St Paul was preaching to newborn babies? What is the matter with you people? Are you out of touch with reality? Sometimes it makes me feel as if Americans live on another planet.
Orthodox Church then doesn't believe in the gospel and in the necessity of being born again?
Anderson Caviedes ......where do you get that from friend?
@@theclassic6198 I'm asking a question
Anderson Caviedes ....... Of course the Orthodox Church not only believes in thr Gospel of Jesus Christ, they preach the Gospel. And “being born again” is thru Baptism. And the Orthodox Church Baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Hope this helps friend.
@@theclassic6198 I mean if there's no original sin, what are we saved from? Romans 1 talks about god's wrath and the sin of men.
Anderson Caviedes ....... I am just a layman but I do believe this Father is mistaken on “Original Sin”. I actually call it “Ancestral Sin”. Same thing though. The Greek Orthodox Church does teach this doctrine, that is the main reason that we Baptize babies. I really have no clue where this Father gets this idea from.
🌺☦️🌺
So Paul is a liar when he said we have inherited the sins of our fathers ?
We inherit the sinful nature, not the sin itself or it’s punishment unless its a curse.
@@jcxkzhgco3050 nice word play
@@alfredhitchcock45 you can misinterpret however you want, it’s none of my business
@@alfredhitchcock45 This is quite literally how the Orthodox Study Bible explains it.
an orthodox person told me sin is like a chronic disease that is passed down to us and gets worse later in our lives?
And I certainly don't believe in Calvsnism.
So every time you sin you need to be baptized?
@Telosbound so you are Roman Catholic?
@Telosbound sorry to be a nuisance but is there an official Canon on this teaching? If so where would I find it. And is there any doctrinal or dogmatic differences among orthodox churches ?
@Telosbound Oriental hmm interesting
The only time anyone needs to be re-baptized is when the wrong form or method was used.
Form: Mathew 28 says in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Method: Water is used.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, by entering the Christian Church, through which we may be saved from our own sins.
Is your interpreation that this text says that once you have been baptised you are magically scot-free and can commit as many sins as you like?
No. Well sorta...not really...um no.
This issue is such a huge can of worms. Fr. Angelo made it sound like we were born without any inclination towards sin? I’ll bet if you asked him to clarify his statement he would.
He is very naive to assume that
Modern day Orthodoxy has made it a can of worms by the ABC Orthodox = Anything But Catholic, Orthodox.
@@peezeezee8162 That's a good observation.
@@ignatiusl.7478 And I take no joy in this.
I wanted to become Orthodox for a long time, but the vitriolic Orthodox, which most times seem to be converts, makes me feel like I would never really fit in as an Orthodox Christian outside of communion with Rome.
Your humility is clear. I am sorry for the terrible witness you received from converts online. I only pray that at some point you will reconsider. I have witnessed what you are talking about coming from Christians of various stripes. However, do not think it is prudent to judge a 2000 year tradition based on our most spirituality immature members. Just as when I was considering Roman Catholicism. I didn't judge the whole tradition based on the prolific pedophilia problem in the clergy. So I humbly ask you to prayerfully consider taking a deeper look into Orthodoxy. You may be pleasantly surprised.
The idea that sin can be inherited is one of the most nonsensical ideas ever conceived. You will have to be brain dead to believe it. How can I be guilty of a sin I did not commit? I was not even a witness to the commission of that sin. I did not even exist when that sin was committed. This is a fabrication created by the churches. It's absolutely nonsensical. Every person is responsible for their actions.
Saint Augustine of Hippo was far from brain dead, he remains one of the great orthodox catholic thinkers of the undivided church.
Sin is used in different ways in the Bible. It can mean personal sin. It can mean the sinful nature we inherit from Adam. Paul even personifies sin as a power or agent in itself, but not truly of course, yet it can seem that way sometimes when I do what I do not want to do. The Bible says we were "made sinners" on account of Adam, and that is how we share in his guilt, which means for us that we share in his (lack of) standing before God. We, like him, are born into sin and in need of redemption.
To show that the guilt of Original Sin is real, just take stock of how many children of Adam never sin. It is only two - the Blessed Mother and Christ Himself. Christ is God, so He cannot sin; and the Blessed Mother was prevented from contracting Original Sin by a unique sovereign act of God. The rest of us ratify in ourselves the very sin of Adam, disobedience to God, inevitably just as soon as we reach the age of reason. Since God knows all things, He foresaw this, so to say we do not share the guilt of Adam even though we essentially "are" Adam by nature, is a little disingenuous.
The Church says in the canons of Trent that we inherit Original Sin by way of propagation not imitation, which means we are not just sinners because of our own choices (in imitating Adam), but essentially destined to sin since we receive his fallen nature. And being in that state of alienation from God, we lack grace, so Paul's teaching that we were made sinners on account of Adam is clear. The Church says that "the sin of Adam... is in each one as something that is his own."
If we do not have Adam's guilt, then why are babies baptized to expiate that guilt by applying the merits of Christ for the remission of sins? Trent touches on this as well. Baptism is for sinners, to reconcile them to God via the remission of sins on account of the merits of Christ. But if no sin and no guilt in babies, then why baptize? Some Protestants who argue against against both infant baptism and Original Sin actually take this view. Thus we can see the dangers of heresy, how it leads us step by step away from truth. There is no need for anyone to get caught up in heresy, however, since God established for us a teaching Church which is protected from error by divine promises. Listen to that Church and you won't have to worry about re-inventing the wheel of Christian doctrine. It's all there for you already.
@@MillionthUsername - Due to the Original Sin (i.e. due to being born human and not as pure immaterial logos in the image of God), babies have inherited the propensity for sin. But when born, they have not yet committed any sins.
I don't really understand, old testament isn't god's word? Jesus said we shouldn't change not even a word from the old testament. Then you claim that god created humans in his image, that includes all ancestors of humans like homo erectus or only homo sapient? Because modern humans evolved gradually from earlier humanoids there was never a first man or woman.
Jesus Christ said he did not come to reject the Old Testament but to complement it. If you complement Newtonian Physics with quantum mechanics and relativity, you do not outright reject the old theory. You (a) acknowledge that previous formulation, that it was truly thought so and believed so and written so by Isaac Newton and trains and bicycles were made using those principles by previous generations and that it was so (b) however, now there is an improved and more developed formulation that helps us also make quantum clocks. For an adult Christian, the concept of God can be more developed than the one a child may believe in. I hope that is clearer now.
When it is said that God created humans in His image, likely they would have not have a head, limbs, a digestive system, genitals and the need to eat to survive. The kind of humans we find in actual fact are different to the ones said to have been made in God's image in the Old Testament, they are biological beings. Certainly, we need to eat to survive.
Let's see what the canons say. Yes we believe in unoriginal sin and those that are unbapisted from the church will be in hell forever. Even aborted children.
Baptism serves the purpose of entering the life of the Church, through which we may be saved from our own sin(s), not those committed by someone we have not even met. What do you think baptism is, some kind of magic spell?
That's anti Orthodox
Original Sin is a Catholic Doctrine it does not belong in Protestantism.
Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans believe in original sin. Mainline Protestants do not believe in original sin.
Mainline Protestants don't believe much of what is found in the Bible, certainly nothing that conflicts with their modernist worldview.
Title: ok I’m gonna learn about original sin and the Orthodox belief
First topic: no sacraments when I’m on my period? 👁️👄👁️
You clearly didn't understand the discussion.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 Oh ok
Woman is unclean when on period simple is that so she shouldn't touch holy things cos we should be pure spiritualy and bodily we honour God that way So I don't understand y orthodox priest don't agree with that is shocking!!! Honestly crazy
No thing is holy, God is holy
I don’t understand ? Periods are natural. They are part of the human body. Plz explain why it is unclean and how if a woman touches something holy while on her period it’s instantly becomes contaminated ? That’s not scientifically possible.
Slavka Rybovicova: I just watched this video. I’m first generation Greek-Canadian (my parents are both from Greece). My mother raised me NOT to take communion when having my period. I’ve even discussed this topic with “new” & “old” calendar priests here in Montreal. We are taught that we should NOT. It’s the first time I hear a priest saying that it’s okay. 🙏
@@geoffmclay3962 Never mix Faith with science.
🤣🤣 The beautiful process of being a woman,the life force..you call unclean.Religion is such bullshit and has taught women such as yourselves to hate yourselves and live a life of fear. Oh may you find truth before you exit this life.I‘m so glad I found mine!