[kosta50]

I don't think "original sin" as meant by Orange had the same connotations that it did after Trent

The "original sin" at the Council of Orange was probably understood in Augustinian terms. The Orthodox teaching is not in line with that.

The "'original sin' is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death. Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life." (The Doctrine of the Orthodox Church

The concept of inherited "guilt" as opposed to "damage" is a very different mindset that prevailed in the theology of the East and the West from Augstine onward.

To the Orthodox, our mortality is a consequence of the original sin which is transmitted to succeeding generations by our fallen nature. We suffer death on account of Adam. We have not broken the law by inheritiy mortality from our ancestral parents, so there is no guilt and if there is no guilt there is no need to "pay back" anything.

Sin is willful disobedience to God. Obviosuly, infants do not sin. So, there is nothing to "wash off."

[jo kus]

The "'original sin' is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death. Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life."

Of course. Man inherits mortality, and concupiscence, as well. We have inherited a tendency to sin that was not there before

The concept of inherited "guilt" as opposed to "damage" is a very different mindset that prevailed in the theology of the East and the West from Augstine onward.

I think we take a broader definition of "guilt". We certainly see ourselves as "damaged", as well. Sure, we don't have Adam's personal sin on us, as if it was our responsibility. But we (and you, I believe) see Adam as the universal man (as Christ would become), thus, his "sin" is our sin, as our fallen nature shows. Guilt does bring about a different mindset, you are correct. However, one can find both concepts in the Fathers before St. Augustine. Again, it is two ways of approaching the same problem, man's fallen nature.

We have not broken the law by inheritiy mortality from our ancestral parents, so there is no guilt and if there is no guilt there is no need to "pay back" anything.

Retribution, redemption, atonement, payback. All are part and parcel of the Christian view of Christ's work on the Cross. It certainly is not the only view, which is why I continue to see a reconciliation between our positions on this subject. I see us looking at the issue from two different views.

Sin is willful disobedience to God. Obviosuly, infants do not sin. So, there is nothing to "wash off."

Sin is the absence of God's presence, something against His will. Scriptures tell us that one might sin and not know about it! I think this is more an OT concept, but Paul talks about it, as well. An infant requires baptism not because of personal sin, because there is a lack of God's presence, the inherited nature of humanity, the damaged goods, so to speak. Because of the fall, we are no longer "children of God". When the early Church talks about baptism for the remission of sin for children, I think they sense that the infant has not committed personal sin, but still conducted the ritual as they sensed somthing amiss in man's fallen state (even an infant) that required it.

Regards