That looks like a pretty good summary, thanks.
You’re correct, as far as I know, about the RC view, although I read that there are some modern exceptions, and as you noted, there was some back and forth way back.
I do definitely prefer some of the resulting conclusions from Traducianism and I think that in general, the Eastern Orthodox way of handling original sin seems healthier, at least compared to how some in the West use it in early catechism. Whether this is a necessary result of the theology or a failure of humans, I’m not sure. I also wasn’t raised in the East, so it could be that humans there could also misuse teaching of inherited sin while still be correct to the letter.
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance” and I don’t know the Eastern response to this objection. I would accept “it’s a lesser problem than you have otherwise.”
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents. Which would seem, to me anyway, to mitigate the objection to Traducianism, but I’m not sure how it removes it.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly. From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on.
thanks for your post..
Interesting observation. In the East, the ancestral (original) sin is looked at as a disease passed on from generation to generation. The soul is sick, and in need of a spiritual physician. Adam's transgression tipped the scale of his neither-mortal-nor-immortal-nature to mortality, and from there on all those who share in his nature are also mortal.
To become healed we need to be spiritually united with God by imitating Him and submitting to His will, thereby regaining His likeness which was lost in the Fall. So, by becoming Christ-like we are in various stages of healing. This, of course, requires obedience and cooperation with the Physician.
It's comparable to a drug-addicted child born by a drug-addicted mother. It will continue in perpetuum if untreated. Naturally, the child bears no guilt or responsability for his affliction, but he cannot—on his own—shake himself free from it. So, the eastern mindest is free of guilt, self-debasng, self-condmening concept of the original sin.
In this mindset, the concept of Immaculate Conception is meaningless to the Orthodox. Combine that with traducianism and one can see no theological basis for such an intervention. In fact, IC in this framework produces a human being unlike the rest of us.
This could be, as some of our friends here like to say, an observer problem, because it is just a slikely that, from the strictly Augustinian frame of mind, the IC must perfect sense and even a necessity!
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance”
I am not sure what that means.
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents
The "fallen part" of what? The soul? I didn't think souls came in parts. It is not our body that is fallen, but our soul. The soul quickens the body; the body follows. The body is a car; the soul is the driver. If the driver is drunk...you get the drift. Adam first experienced spiritual death, which was eventually followed by physicial death.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly
That is true and the different views in this sphere were not any cause of division as fra as I know.
From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on
Most certainly.