IF this is inevitable, then would it be fair to say that the "operation" of original sin is enough to condemn? That would virtually be the same as I was saying. My understanding of Orthodoxy is that no one is necessarily "doomed" from original sin. That is, anyone could (potentially) just choose to ignore (resist) it, and never sin. Of course we Reformers say that is impossible, so I was just wondering where Catholicism fell on that continuum.
No, the Eastern Church never knew or beleieved Augustinian semi-Manicheaen error of the guilt of the original sin. The Eastern Church always knew of the consequecnes of the ancestral sin, which is death, to which all mankind was captive until Christ died on the Cross and resurrected, "trampling death by death."
The East always taught that man is born terminally ill, not guilty, in need of a physician. Our souls and our will are sick, which influences our choices.
We are restored (healed) by the Holy Spirit through the mysterion (sacrament) of Baptism and enabled to choose God, but He doesn't make our choices. It was Christ, dying on the Cross, and not man on his own, who made that possible.
The Curch in the East always taught that it is the Holy Spirit who leads and some who have been restored follow Him, willingly, while others follow the devil, by choice. The latter condemn themsleves, by choice.
Chirst is Risen!
In the same place that Kosta describes in 5,208. While St. Augustine is much admired in the West and less so in the East, his view on original sin is at times referred to as "augistinianism" and is not dogmatic. No, Original sin in itself does not condemn to hell. In fact, I doubt if Augustine in fact taught that. He wrote so much that at times he can be read in contradiction to the totality of his views. If he really taught that originial sin condemns to hell, he would not have developed the doctrine of Limbo that teaches differently.