What is the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs?

[Teke]

But that's not what this particular thread is about - I only wanted an answer on the questions in my OP regarding the official Orhtodox teaching with respect to the substutionary death of Christ on behalf of the sinner and the believer being clothed with HIS righteousness, and where and how the official Orthodox teaching differs from the R.C.C regarding these questions.

So we'll talk about the other things you brought up again maybe in another thread



ananias

Hey Ananias,
Did I answer that particular question for you? I believe I did say there is a difference from the RC in that Orthodox do not associate the guilt of Adam's sin with all mankind. IOW we don't inherit that guilt/sin, we do suffer the consequences of it.

That doesn't mean that we don't believe that all are sinners. It just means that we believe that Adam's sin didn't eradicate that image and likeness God made us in. There are doctrines which believe that man is incapable of doing good because of Adam's sin (I've noted such in Calvinism). Orthodox understanding would be at odds with such a doctrine. That doesn't mean that we believe that we can become righteous of own selves either. It just means that we have no excuse to not do good as God wishes us to. Man has freedom of choice in the matter.

It's similar to the Baptist understanding of "individual soul liberty".
And I'd go as far as to say that we agree on, as you put it "clothed with His righteousness" if you mean in relation to baptism. But even that doesn't automatically make us righteous, as it is a work. And only God can declare a person righteous.

Wouldn't you agree?

________________________

[Teke]

Hi Richard, I'll contrast the difference from Orthodoxy from your list.

• First off – the Ten Commandments are not the same.
  “Graven images” is left out (they tend to “venerate” statues)

• Orthodox venerate icons. Not statues according to ecumenical council.
  

  To fill the slot, “coveting” was expanded into 2 commandments: wife [I thought this was covered by “adultery”?] AND goods.

  Orthodox didn't change any commandments.
  

• Mary is thought to be immaculately conceived, so as to be acceptable to God for the conception of Jesus.

[Richard H]

Hi Teke,
Thanks for the contrast/comparison. I’m glad the Orthodox didn’t change the Ten Commandments. I’ll elaborate a bit more on the RCC.

I don’t assume that the Orthodox follow this doctrine.

The RCC also venerates relics and even bones. Benedict recently had the body of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who died in 1890, exhumed in the first steps toward beatification.
There’s a homosexual controversy about this, but that isn’t relevant to our topic. The Papal goal is to have his bones available for veneration.

As I understand it every high cathedral (not every church) has some sort of venerable bone under the alter, although I was not taught that this was so.

The RCC concept of Mary is that she is seen as reigning side by side with Christ. In some recent Vatican writings
(much by Cardinal Ratzinger before he was made Pope) even replacing Christ with Mary as the source of redemption and grace.

The Catholic idea of prayer is that one needs a mediator to get through to God and such mediators are righteous human beings (saints).
One might be considered bold to pray directly to Mary – apart from the usual Hail Marys.
By “particular pull in certain matters”,
I mean one saint might have more pull than others to get the desired results for the petitioner.
If you are praying for safety at sea, you pray to the patron saint of sailors, St. Elmo. If you are praying for an animal, you pray to St. Francis of Assisi.

The RCC performs infant baptism to "ensure" an individual’s salvation.
Many American Catholics are not convinced of purgatory, but Benedict wants to bring it back – even the Latin mass.

When they offer “The Mystery of The Eucharist”, the priest prays that God “make it an acceptable sacrifice, which will become - for us - the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
It’s one of the rare instances where the saving work of Christ is focused upon. Often He is seen merely as an example of how to live a good life.

The concept of the cross is so mixed in with Mary, the rosary, the saints, the statues, attendance to mass and participation in the sacraments, that Jesus becomes lost to the person in the pew.

Most Catholics that I have known, when asked about how they will to get to Heaven, say: “I’m a good person. I go to church. I take communion.”
Others just shrug.

It IS true that many Catholics are good people, but the doctrine makes it easy to miss a personal relationship with the Lord of Life.

Richard L,

[Richard H]

I almost forgot:
Whereas Indulgences were (and are again) forgiveness before the sin.
Confession (forgiveness granted by the Priest) is seen as the “fix-it” by many – as long as one makes it to Confession, that’s all that’s necessary.

[Scruffy Kid]

Much of what Richard says about Catholicism simply in error.
Much of the rest is misleading.

The Catholic faith is fully Christian.

(I myself am a Protestant).

However, I can't take the time, at this stage, to get into a detailed debate about it.

The purpose of the thread was to clarify differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

That's been done.

I suggest that the thread be closed.

[Teke]

Scruffy this is WR, where RC error can be addressed. Why close the thread when the opportunity is presented to address the errors.

You said your a Protestant, I recall some time ago reading your of the Anglican religion. That is a catholic (little "c") religion isn't it? If I'm wrong please correct me.

I would think you as well as I, since we are catholics, could address the schismatic error of Roman catholics.

[Richard H]

Catholic doctrine may seem in order at first glance. I spoke less out of theology and more to the understanding of the people in the pews.

I do consider Catholics brothers in theory, but many rely on prescribed practices to gain entrance.

This is how I was taught growing up and is not different than my experience with the Catholics in my Mom’s church.
In short: there is a reliance on ritual and symbolism - rather than the practical reliance on the Spirit.
The church interjects itself as the mediator between God and man.(added)

Richard

PS: I shall remain quite now and await correction.

[Teke]

Hi Teke,
Thanks for the contrast/comparison. I’m glad the Orthodox didn’t change the Ten Commandments. I’ll elaborate a bit more on the RCC.

I don’t assume that the Orthodox follow this doctrine.

Hi Richard, as Scruffy pointed out in his post, the difference lies with councils. Much of Orthodoxy recognizes the first seven, a few only the first three. When Rome decided that they would try to coerce the other patriarchates into submitting to the Roman bishop a schism occurred because such an idea goes against the decision of the ecumenical councils which state that one bishop does not and cannot hold higher authority over all or any other bishops. Nor can they exercise authority over jurisdictions outside their own. The Apostolic council states bishops are all equals with no greater or lesser authority. This was to keep the church conciliar in matters of faith.

The RCC also venerates relics and even bones. Benedict recently had the body of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who died in 1890, exhumed in the first steps toward beatification.
There’s a homosexual controversy about this, but that isn’t relevant to our topic. The Papal goal is to have his bones available for veneration.

As I understand it every high cathedral (not every church) has some sort of venerable bone under the alter, although I was not taught that this was so.

The concept of holy relics, such as bones, comes from the early tradition of the church holding the Eucharist in the graveyards or catacombs where the departed saints rested. It is connected with the belief that the saints are alive in heaven and participate in worship with us on earth. Thus relating the idea of heaven and earth both in worship to God.

I have heard of such holy relics being inside an altar, if it is a fixed (meaning immovable) altar. They are always in the antimension (meaning "instead of the table") or movable altar. The Eucharist is not celebrated without it. It is on the altar with the gospel of the four Evangelists.
The immovable and movable altar are traditions passed on from the Apostles tradition of Israel which had both a movable and immovable altar for worship.

Not long ago I participated in a thread in Contro on "holy relics'.

The RCC concept of Mary is that she is seen as reigning side by side with Christ. In some recent Vatican writings
(much by Cardinal Ratzinger before he was made Pope) even replacing Christ with Mary as the source of redemption and grace.

I'll contrast this with Orthodox practice and understanding. In an Orthodox church Mary is never depicted in icons without Jesus. We call her the Theotokas (God bearer). This is in relation to Trinity theology of the Son, which relates He was fully human born of a virgin. These concepts relate to the Church herself, which is the spotless bride of Christ (ever virgin) and the God bearer to the world (fully human body of Christ) for Christ. Concluding theologically that the church is both human and divine as Christ's body.

In an Orthodox church, using icons, which are in the front of the altar, the story of Jesus is depicted. Every Orthodox church places specific icons in the same order to tell the story of Christ. The Theotokas is on the left side of the door to the entrance door of the altar, depicting her with Jesus (who is always depicted as a man child), on the right side of the door is the icon of Jesus depicting Him as Pantorcrator (meaning "ruler of all"), and Prophet and Forerunner John the Baptist. The four Evangelist's, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are usually depicted on the royal doors (entrance to the altar).

The Catholic idea of prayer is that one needs a mediator to get through to God and such mediators are righteous human beings (saints).
One might be considered bold to pray directly to Mary – apart from the usual Hail Marys.
By “particular pull in certain matters”,
I mean one saint might have more pull than others to get the desired results for the petitioner.
If you are praying for safety at sea, you pray to the patron saint of sailors, St. Elmo. If you are praying for an animal, you pray to St. Francis of Assisi.

Orthodox have no such teaching as one has more pull than others. Except in that we believe that all the sainsts in heaven are closer to God having departed the human passions of the flesh. They are more like role models for us in our understanding. That is what I had in mind when I picked my saint, St Macrina sister of St Gregory and St Basil.

We are just naturally drawn to certain virtuous qualities of certain saints. For instance I also am drawn to St Isaac of Syria and St Seraphim (Fr Seraphim Rose an American saint). For me they are great role models who literally followed Christ.

The RCC performs infant baptism to "ensure" an individual’s salvation.

We baptize infants, anoint them to seal them with the Holy Spirit (known as Chrismation) and give them communion all at the same time.

I understand some catholic practice is to wait for the latter two above, in relation to their understanding of "age of reason". Orthodox do not use reason in following the command to be baptized as we cannot say with certainty that the infant is not already crying out to God. So we do not wait to give them these mysteries.

When they offer “The Mystery of The Eucharist”, the priest prays that God “make it an acceptable sacrifice, which will become - for us - the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Orthodox will admit it is the body and blood of Christ, though they can't explain such a mystery as this. They would call what the Holy Spirit does mystical.

It’s one of the rare instances where the saving work of Christ is focused upon. Often He is seen merely as an example of how to live a good life.

Orthodox would agree.

The concept of the cross is so mixed in with Mary, the rosary, the saints, the statues, attendance to mass and participation in the sacraments, that Jesus becomes lost to the person in the pew.

Most Catholics that I have known, when asked about how they will to get to Heaven, say: “I’m a good person. I go to church. I take communion.”
Others just shrug.

I've met many Roman catholics like this. It is lack of education or they are just not interested in knowing/understanding.

It IS true that many Catholics are good people, but the doctrine makes it easy to miss a personal relationship with the Lord of Life.

I couldn't see that happening in an Orthodox church, as all is Christ centered and Christians are literally living the scriptures which teach Christ.
It is a work of God to transform us by His grace (transfiguration by grace).

[Br. Barnabas]

I should first say that since Teke is here and she seems to be saying what my Orthodox friends would be saying I will let her speak to the Orthodox questions.

But I thought I would shed some light on the offical Anglican understanding of your questions. And point out where the Articles of Relgion may differ from the way Anglicanism is usually practiced, because we follow them but they are written as a happy medium of belief and people can lean to the right or left and still be in line with them.

Ok so as far as ananias' first question goes below is Article 2 of the 39 Articles of Religion.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

I would say that we don't usually phrase it as being saved from the wrath of God, but that we are brought into the Kingdom of God by Christ's work, as that is the ultamite goal of our faith; being saved from God's wrath is part of it.

As for number 2, we agree that there is nothing that we can do to add to Christ's sacrifice or his righteousness nor do our works make us righteous.

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Now having all that we believe that faith without works is not good. I know that I take a more Roman stance on it and have in the past if I felt that I had a reoccuring sin that was becoming to much for me or that I thought I was falling into sin in certain places to often, then I took on a force pentence. In which I would usually say the daily or evening office on my knees or say a number of "Jesus prayers" or say pray through my Anglican rosary or my do the more traditional prayers on my Roman rosary, not that I thought these would save me or that it forgave my sins. But what it did was remind me that when I wanted to sin or when I felt that sin coming on it would diswade me from doing it, knowing that I was going to have pain in my knees later, or that I would be spending a lot more time being uncorftable when I prayed, and remind me that it was sin and that I should not do it. Because of all the prayers that I was praying always reminded me of what Jesus had to go through because of my sin.

As for number 3, Christ died in our place, he went down to Hell/She'ol in our place and brought those that repented out of She'ol/Hell. As for being the scapegoat and the lamb that was sacrificed. That seems to be a non-offical doctrine of any church that I know of; not to say that many don't compare Christ to this many times or in many places. But it is not always a required belief to have to be a Christian. So asking if the Orthodox believe it or the Romans believe it or the Methodist or Lutheran or Pentecostal believe it is really not going to tell you about the offical teachings of those churches but more about how the individual feels about this understanding. Now Christ was a sacrifice and it was done on or around Passover, but that does not mean that we have to see him as being the Passover lamb(s). Because I see it as the creator dying for his creation in order to restore it to it's rightful place.

As for number 4, I will not comment on this since Teke has already done that.

Also I will add that I as an Anglican and many other Anglican's that I know do not consider themselves to be Protestants, because we are really not protesting anything, we believe that we have a connection by Apostilic succesion to the start of the church. We consider ourselves to be catholic (little 'c') meaning universal. We might have been part of the Roman church for a long time but when King Henry and other theologians spilt we did not consider that they were keeping with the teachings passed on my the Apostles. However, there are some Anglicans, and I lean more in this way, that are almost Roman Catholics and would be if it were not for a few differences in doctrine, so we take a much higher view of tradition and believe that many of the things that the Romans do are from the very early on or had their roots early on in church history.

We kept with the orthodox fathers and had our line from those bishops and priests. I know there are some on these boards that think that their tradition comes from the "early anti-baptists" in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, but the leaders that they point to are considered heretics from the understanding of their peers, the early church, and Anglican church.

I hope that helps to understand yet another branch of Christianity's understanding on the questions you asked.

[Richard H]

Thanks, Teke and Uriel for adding to my understanding of the Orthodox and Anglican churches. It’s good that we learn about each other.

I have no problem with meaningful ritual centered on God and His Son, Jesus – provided that the participants actually understand the significance.
My Mom remained Catholic (big C J ), but developed a real relationship with the Lord before her passing.
My sister is currently lulled into complacency by the comfort of ritual alone.
Despite her being a linguist and a scholar of old English, she has no desire to read scripture.
She gets that on Sunday and that’s enough for her.

‘Tis true that I have a dim view of the big C, but the basic doctrine is there, so I must accept them as brothers.
I do see the Catholic Church changing – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Don’t think that I’m touting Protestantism - in its full spectrum of nominal populations and doctrinal differences.

It’s up to the Lord to decide where we all succeed and where we fail.

I think all churches should take a good look at Christ’s letters to the churches in Revelation.
There’s no such thing as a perfect church/denomination.

I was raised RC during Vatican-II, the experience and beliefs of my elders had a foundation in pre-V-II.
I could give you links to Catholic sources for much of what I've said, but having been reprimanded before; I hesitate to include any links.

Perhaps there’s a Catholic brother or sister here who can enlighten all of us better.

Richard

Still awaiting…

[Teke]

Uriel, nice post.

I appreciate everyone (ananias, Scruffy, Richard and Uriel) who participated in this thread, thank you. It was a nice and civil exchange. Something that doesn't always happen in this forum, though it should.

I respect every one of you and hope there will be further exchanges such as these. It never hurts for us to understand one another better. And likely helps us love one another all the more.

Peace be with you all,
Eve

[servantsheart]

That is right on Scruffy.
Orthodox begin with the Incarnation, and from there explain all the rest Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection.

Here is an explanation from my blog, titled "why did Christ have to die".

In line with the teachings of Christ as our great High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ's Immolation on the Cross was sacrificial (the office of a priest), latreutic (worshipful), and soterial (verse 2:3): Our Savior's human life itself constituted a victory over the world (2:8), death, (2:9, 14), and the devil (2:14).

Jesus's Suffering on the Cross, was especially((soterial ))this word not in
Greek/Hebrew W.E. Vine dictiionary or regular dictionary so I don't
understand what you think it means.
2:10), but would have no value as (Immolation )not in Vine's Greek and Hebrew...
ceremonial mactation) unless (Anaphora ) not in Greek/Hebrew ...reg. dictionary says: repetition of a word or expressing at the beginning of successive phrases.
Oblation (offering) followed as the point of sacrificing. (The Book of Hebrews uses anaphérein "offer"--just as the Orthodox still do.) Christians view our Savior's Suffering (Passion) and Death as a propitiating or atoning Immolation. But the Crucifixion, perfect in Itself, was not all there was to Christ's humiliation. Of His Incarnation, Hebrew 2:17 says: ". . . it was needful for Him to become like [his] brothers in all [respects], in order that He might also become a compassionate and faithful high Priest with regard to things pertaining to God for the sake of atoning for the sins of the people." The following verse adds: "For in that He has suffered, He Himself having been tested [or tempted], He is able to give aid to those being tested [or tempted; cf. verse 15]." Subsequently, He entered His rest (4:10), a rest we are to strive to enter (4:11).

It is hard for a {estern Christian to think in this ancient Greek-language, Hebrew-dominated framework.} ???? We study the word and relate wording to the old context in Greek and Hebrew.
Since Protestants do not typically define a priest as a sacrificer, Luther's "priesthood of all believers" becomes irrelevant to the message of the Book of Hebrews.

When a perfect part of creation was offered to the all-holy Trinity, a perfect act of Worship was finally achieved by humanity. We share in this by becoming one with Christ, i.e. by

partaking of His uncreated, Life-giving Energies. } What does this mean?

What He did is not simply imputed to us, but we actually share in what He
did by being ontological (not virtual or metaphorical) members of His Body--one with Him in true, not virtual, reality. The divine Liturgy says that Christ is both Offerer (in us) and Offered.

Our relationship with Christ is both vertical and horizontal --remember the shape of the cross...God is heavenly but he meets us on our earthly plain

{ffering is the essence of Sacrifice and can be repeated; Christ's Death on the Cross, mistaken for the essence of Sacrifice by Protestants, cannot be repeated, but does not even occur in non-propitiatory sacrifices.} are you saying those of us who relate ourselves as Christians in Christ Jesus only think in a surface (essence-your word) of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross of Calvary?
We believe Jesus was the final sacrificial lamb...and NO it can not be repeated--- his blood was spilled and shed for all of us to cover
any and all sins and disease and illness that could every inflict man...
the word Propitiation (Greek/Hebrew) means: through the propitiation sacrifice of Christ he who believes upon Him is by Gods own act delieverd from justly deserved wrath and comes under the covenant of grace. The enmity exists on man's part alone, and that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God, and not God to man.
The word Offering from Greek/Hebrew means: of the sacrifice of Christ Himself, Heb. 8:3; of Christ in virtue of his High Priesthood. And again, the sacrifice Christ made to die on the cross for our sins can not be repeated....Christ ended the sacrifice of killing a lamb for every sin man committed in the OT..over 600 of them occuring daily! Christ's death ended the OT laws and sacrifices.
Anyone who understands a priest and his job will understand this.

If I misunderstood your teaching here I am sorry. But it was not making sense to me. So I looked up the words in the Bible, the reg. dictionary and my W.E. Vines, dictionay. Thanks, Pat

[Teke]

Try the free online dictionary which references many other dictionaries such as theological ones. I posted where the Greek word "anaphora" (anaphérein =offer) comes from, the book of Hebrews. Sorry if the post confused you.

Life giving energies are energies we participate with God in, like love, mercy, forgiveness etc. They are called "uncreated" energies because they are of God who is not created, IOW they are not created objects.

And yes, Jesus sacrifice is eternal as He is eternal, not a one time thing or else it would only apply to the time it happened in.

[ananias]

But I thought I would shed some light on the offical Anglican understanding of your questions.
Ok so as far as ananias' first question goes below is Article 2 of the 39 Articles of Religion.

I would say that we don't usually phrase it as being saved from the wrath of God, but that we are brought into the Kingdom of God by Christ's work, as that is the ultamite goal of our faith; being saved from God's wrath is part of it.

As for number 2, we agree that there is nothing that we can do to add to Christ's sacrifice or his righteousness nor do our works make us righteous.

Now having all that we believe that faith without works is not good.

As for number 3, Christ died in our place, he went down to Hell/She'ol in our place and brought those that repented out of She'ol/Hell. As for being the scapegoat and the lamb that was sacrificed. That seems to be a non-offical doctrine of any church that I know of; not to say that many don't compare Christ to this many times or in many places. But it is not always a required belief to have to be a Christian. So asking if the Orthodox believe it or the Romans believe it or the Methodist or Lutheran or Pentecostal believe it is really not going to tell you about the offical teachings of those churches but more about how the individual feels about this understanding. Now Christ was a sacrifice and it was done on or around Passover, but that does not mean that we have to see him as being the Passover lamb(s). Because I see it as the creator dying for his creation in order to restore it to it's rightful place.

As for number 4, I will not comment on this since Teke has already done that.

We consider ourselves to be catholic (little 'c') meaning universal.
We kept with the orthodox fathers and had our line from those bishops and priests. I know there are some on these boards that think that their tradition comes from the "early anti-baptists" in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, but the leaders that they point to are considered heretics from the understanding of their peers, the early church, and Anglican church.

I hope that helps to understand yet another branch of Christianity's understanding on the questions you asked.

Thanks, Uriel. This was very informative - and how close my heart draws to some of the doctrines expressed above which are according to the truth of the matter:

nothing that we can do to add to Christ's sacrifice or his righteousness nor do our works make us righteous.

Now having all that we believe that faith without works is not good.

As for number 3, Christ died in our place, he went down to Hell/She'ol in our place and brought those that repented out of She'ol/Hell.

And we who repent and believe in Him are considered righteous by God on the basis of HIS merit. Thanks.

Thanks also Richard and Teke for your contributions. I have a better picture now. I seems to me, from what I've gathered about the Orthdox Church's doctrines, that I don't agree at all with the Orthodox Chruch's understanding of the sacrifice and Atonement of Christ - in fact, I've now realized that I may have a fundamental difference with the Orthodox Chruch about this. I never realized how fundamentally different the Orthodox understanding and doctrine is regarding Christ's dying in our place (as a substitute for us), as well as how different their understanding and doctrine is regarding the fact that we are considered righteous by God becuase of the merit of Christ.

ananias

[Teke]

I never realized how fundamentally different the Orthodox understanding and doctrine is regarding Christ's dying in our place (as a substitute for us), as well as how different their understanding and doctrine is regarding the fact that we are considered righteous by God becuase of the merit of Christ.

Ananias,
Is this because I said that what He did is not simply imputed to us, but that we participate with Him?

I do not disagree that Christ died for us. I disagree that He was a substitute for sin. There is a difference. He didn't change the fact that we will all die, when He "died" for us. He changed our status, in a manner of speaking, with God. Scripture relates it to changing that which came from Adam upon mankind, that being death. Romans 5:17

I don't know if this will help you understand my view better, but Orthodox see death and the fear related with that as being partly responsible for the "why" we sin. IOW Adam's sin brought death to us all, but not the guilt of Adam's sin, because a person can't be guilty of another persons sin. But they can suffer the consequence of it. Jesus changed that.

It's like a reverse effect. Adam's sin brought death, and our fear of death caused us to sin the more in our misguided attempts to escape it (like a psychological effect). We are not to fear death. God ordained/commanded that we are to die in the flesh, as even the Son of God did in our state of flesh and blood.


Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

It's a simple understanding.