Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy on Original Sin

Comments by Jason on Andrew's post-"More on the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem". The Filioque clause and differences between the Catholic and Orthodox views on Original Sin

Here are my thoughts on the issues. I am inclined to take the filioque clause to be a genuine dispute rather than just a semantic one. The readings of the two are obviously fundamentally different. However, I also take the two views of Original Sin (OS hereafter) that you alluded to in your earlier post as a genuine dispute not merely a semantic one. Here is why.

Saying that a "thing” such a stain, virus, or whatever metaphor one chooses to talk about OS, seems to be asserting that there is a substance that has existential status (i.e. that something exists). That is to say, Adam's action in Eden tainted human nature with a “thing” called Sin. Now, that is a very different claim than saying that humans lack holiness. That is a denial of the existence of a given substance or thing. The former claim presupposes the existence of two categories, namely, sinfulness and holiness, where the latter claim does not. Thus, logically speaking, they are NOT definitionally equivalent.

I am sure some of us recall when St. Augustine made a similar point in his Confessions when criticizing the Manichaeans’ views about evil. They treated evil as “Evil”, a thing that is a real substance. That EVIL and GOOD are two equal but opposing substances. Augustine contra the Manichaeans' said that evil has NO real subsistence. Rather we should define evil as the negation (or deviation from) of God’s perfect holiness. This is a claim of the existence of only one category, holiness. Hence, if the Papists and some Protestants, view Sin as having real subsistence, then that is a very different claim than the Orthodox’s claim that Sin is the negation (deviation) of God’s perfect holiness.

Many Christians regardless of theological persuasion talk of “Sin” as some kind of substance; so does Scripture. Perhaps these are just examples of taking the metaphors too seriously. However, it is endemic in sermon talk among Evangelicals and Catholics. Unfortunately, using metaphoric language to explain difficult theological doctrines often confuses rather than clarifies these issues. Therefore, I am inclined to think the two views of OS are conceptually if not fundamentally distinct (if we take the metaphors seriously).

More on the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem

I'm writing these more or less of the top of my head, with an occasional wikipedia glance to make sure that I have at least my dates right. Maybe I'll edit for grammar/coherency later, but I wanted to at least throw some rough topics out there.

While pointing out the convergence of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on a wide range of issues, and thus demonstrating the closeness of Catholicism and Orthodoxy compared to the gulf that separates both from Calvinism, the Synod of Jerusalem also reaffirmed the Orthodox rejection of the "filioque clause." The Catholic reading of the Nicene Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son ("and the Son" = "filioque" in latina lingua), a clause rejected by the Orthodox, who proclaim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. I've always found it a little strange that this was such a huge point of controversy. Many of the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism seem to be differences of semantics and cases of looking at the same phenomenon from two different vantagepoints. For example, at risk of oversimplifiying a complex topic into one sentence, Catholicism views original sin as the presence of a stain, whereas Orthodoxy views it as an absence of holiness. Presence of the negative or absence of the positive? Seems like it could be two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon.

But in the filioque clause, we find an actual theological difference between the two traditions that can't be reconciled as "looking at the same thing from two different angles." The Holy Spirit either proceeds from just the Father, or from both the Father and the Son. Both can't be right. But isn't it a pretty minor topic to base the theological roots of a schism on? The filioque clause has come up over and over for 1,000 years as a major point of theological contention and reason, on both sides, for not reconciling. My rough conclusion on why a topic seemingly so tangental to the basic premises of Christianity has historically become such a huge point of contention is simply that the two sides needed something theological to justify what has always been fundamentally a political split.

Thoughts?