A few comment on this thread for @PatristicsFan: https://twitter.com/PatristicsFan/status/1245375216265633793

No Orthodox Christian (with any knowledge of the faith) denies original/ancestral sin. Some say Orthodox deny original sin and affirm ancestral sin. No. It's the same thing. Ancestral sin is how "original" sin is literally translated from the Greek: προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία.

Romanides is constantly mischaracterized. Everything in this thread that was stated as a position by Romanides is not. Read the Ancestral Sin. You will see none of the beliefs the buffoons online claim about Romanides exist in reality.

You will also see Romanides mention many of these Fathers and more and go into much depth on these matters. Giving a very broad picture of how the doctrine affects other doctrines. The book is very good.

About your second tweet: some examples of how Romanides affirms what you are told by no-nothings that he denies:
- "merely" should be primarily.
- Guilt is a 2nd aspect, "justice is eschatalogical." pg. 156.
- "sinful condition" is "death of the soul" and "loss of divine grace."

Fr. John is very careful of his wording. He never claims St. Augustine is responsible for all theological problems in the West. He claims his writings are at variance with the Church of his day and people after him used his writing to chart an innovative theological course.

As time has passed, it is becoming more and more clear this is the case with Augustine. Not to deny him any honor the Church has given him. But over the centuries, as more of Augustine's thought became known, the more Fathers became concerned or made excuses for him.

The many quotes you gave were great. But I don't know who they serve. It must be an incredibly small number of ill-informed and negligently catechized Orthodox admirers online. I want to comment on some:

Irenaeos looks at the question in many ways and is a central figure of concern in Fr. John's thesis. Have to read the book. Cannot simplify the book to two or three points from St. Irenaeos.

"It is said by some Orthodox... the link between original sin and baptism was made by Saint Augustine to justify his thinking."

Never heard that. I suspect no clergyman or academic said this, probably some online buffoon said it. We agree this is nonsense.

Chrysostom seems strongly in line with Fr. John's thesis. Again, read the book. Don't trust any online guys to explain it. For example, Dyer libels Fr. John and uses Ancestral Sin against Romanides but literally misreads or takes the context away to make him say the opposite.

Another big problem, I've wondered if you've addressed is East and West have the same theological vocabulary. However, our definitions are very different.

For one of many examples, when we talk about forgiveness, chances are the West will use a legalistic definition like "clearing charges." For the East a therapeutic definition is used like "removing the infection causing disease."

Anyway, it would be sad to see your interest in Orthodoxy be deserted because you have not had decent representation of our Faith (almost impossible online anyway, esp. within social media). Stretch you understanding, do some real reading, is all I can hope for you. Pray, a lot.