Latin/Orthodox Catholic: Original Sin (Jesus Christ, priest, moral, reject)

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

I'll take your word for it, but nothing you have shown, nor evidence from the councils state such a thing.

"Well then," some people may say, "if the essential thing was that He should surrender His body to death in place of all, why did He not do so as Man privately, without going to the length of public crucifixion? Surely it would have been more suitable for Him to have laid aside His body with honor than to endure so shameful a death." But look at this argument closely, and see how merely human it is, whereas what the Savior did was truly divine and worthy of His Godhead for several reasons. The first is this. The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life Itself. If He had died quietly in His bed like other men it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with His nature, and as though He was indeed no more than other men. But because He was Himself Word and Life and Power His body was made strong, and because the death had to be accomplished, He took the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice not from Himself, but from others. How could He fall sick, Who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others are made strong? Here, again, you may say, "Why did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?" Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body, and to prevent the death would have been to impede the resurrection. And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, "Did He then not hunger?" Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger because He Whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself.

Why did Christ hunger? It is a natural property of the body (even before the Fall). Why did He not grow sick? Because He was too strong for it. There isn't any mention here that Christ's flesh was unlike ours, not having corruption, that it wouldn't be able to fall victem. The entire argument of St. Athanasius, and his defense against the Arians is constituted in the argument:

Someone else might say, perhaps, that it would have been better for the Lord to have avoided the designs of the Jews against Him, and so to have guarded His body from death altogether. But see how unfitting this also would have been for Him. Just as it would not have been fitting for Him to give His body to death by His own hand, being Word and being Life, so also it was not consonant with Himself that He should avoid the death inflicted by others. Rather, He pursued it to the uttermost, and in pursuance of His nature neither laid aside His body of His own accord nor escaped the plotting Jews. And this action showed no limitation or weakness in the Word; for He both waited for death in order to make an end of it, and hastened to accomplish it as an offering on behalf of all. Moreover, as it was the death of all mankind that the Savior came to accomplish, not His own, He did not lay aside His body by an individual act of dying, for to Him, as Life, this simply did not belong; but He accepted death at the hands of men, thereby completely to destroy it in His own body.

In St. Athanasius' argument here, it isn't just that had died, but that was pursuing "it to the uttermost." This paragraph presupposes that Christ had already been dealing with death even as a living being. In Genesis, for instance, Adam and Eve took the fruit, and God told them they would die the very day they ate of it, and the entire world changed its response to them when they did. They did, however, live for a long time after that. Death was already at work in them though. So we have Christ Who banishes death, but He didn't leave death altogether. He could not pursue death in life unless the same death was attempting to work in His body already, and that would be corruption.

He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured.

He was manifest so that we might "perceive the Mind of the unseen Father," in other words that we might know God where we could not otherwise. He suffered sahme that "we might inherit immortality." St. Athanasius goes on to say that "He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men." The whole point of St. Athanasius' treatise is to explain this very phenomena and refute the Arians.At no point did this work distance the work of Christ from our problems. Just as Christ being life destroyed death through His incarnation, so also did His incorruptibility destroy corruption. Christ assumes our flesh, and He conquers death which holds us down so that "we might become God" in St. Athanasius' words.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Again.... nothing you have shown proves that corruption is transmitted biologically, so Mary's sinfulness (or lack thereof) has no bearing.

Scott

I said I wasn't sure on that one. However, my belief is based on the fact that we are whole beings, both physical and spiritual. Sin infects our whole existence (and is the cause of our physical deaths). As such, I would believe that sin is a physical and spiritual problem. Anything less would make either our material sides incorrupt but our spiritual corrupt, or our spirits good and matter corrupt. In either case, it causes some problems.

[Scott1]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[Scott1]

Let's try this again:

#1
EPISTLE OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS from the Council of Ephesus
Anathema X. Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (idikos anthropon), who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

#2
Chalcedon
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a resonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, aas the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

#3.
The fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

The problem, for me, is that your assumption that:

Why did Christ hunger? It is a natural property of the body (even before the Fall). Why did He not grow sick? Because He was too strong for it. There isn't any mention here that Christ's flesh was unlike ours, not having corruption, that it wouldn't be able to fall victem.

.... is quite contrary to all THREE Council affirmations.

Christ assumed human form and defeated death by his INCARNATION..... if you look at the teaching of #3, it clearly shows that in ALL things, the DIVINE Christ was the proper subject. Christ hungered because he willed it so..... Christ did not grow sick because he willed it so..... he was DIVINE..... the corruption you are trying to show in Christ:

So we have Christ Who banishes death, but He didn't leave death altogether. He could not pursue death in life unless the same death was attempting to work in His body already, and that would be corruption.

.... is only present because Christ willed it so..... he was/is DIVINE. Period.

I would love to see something from the Councils that affirms anything you have stated.... from what I've read, it condems what you are teaching as heresy.

Thanks again for helping me understand Orthodox teachings.... this has been great fun and educational for me.

Scott

[No*s]

OK, let me start by rephrasing what I've said again.

There are two varieties of sin in our discussion. There is a sinful action, and there is a corruption that is inherited. I don't think I need to explain the concept of a sinful act, but I do need to explain the corruption again.

By corruption, I mean that our body is not what it should be. Death works in it from its inception. The power of death causes us to grow weak, get sick, and die. It is more specifically the disfigurement of the body and spirit, obscuring the likeness of God, and thus obstructing our ability to grow like God. That is all original sin is.

When Christ assumed a body, He cleansed the material and the human image within it. Thus, Christ did not age, and He died willingly. This is precisely the argument of St. Athanasius in the Council of Nicea as I have outlined above.

I think the problem you're having with what I'm saying is because when I mention that Mary had to have the corrupt nature so that Christ would cleanse it, you impart some inherent unworthiness as a result. Nothing could be further from the truth: she was worthy and not once did she sin, and thus, she has no sin. When Christ assumed His humanity from her, He restored it.

Nowhere in there did I say Christ was sinful, nor did I say Mary was sinful. I simply said that they had a humanity like ours in every respect. The only difference was that Christ had healed the humanity He assumed, and thus, He was without sin. He died, because He chose to and the grave found that it could not hold Christ, Who was immortal.

I've read Orthodox authors who refuse to use the term "original sin," because it leads to confusion. I'm beginning to think I made a mistake in using the term as well.

I don't have any quotes from the Councils on this, but I outlined St. Athanasius' argument on this above, which ties directly into the Council of Nicea. He played a large role in my developing this understanding, in tandem with other things. Another source would be St. Basil:

If, then, the sojourn of the Lord in flesh has never taken place, the Redeemer paid not the fine to death on our behalf, nor through Himself destroyed death's reign. For if what was reigned over by death was not that which was assumed by the Lord, death would not have ceased working his own ends, nor would the sufferings of the God-bearing flesh have been made our gain; He would not have killed sin in the flesh; we who had died in Adam should not have been made alive in Christ; th efallen to pieces would not have been framed again...And if the God-bearing flesh was not ordained to be assumed of the lump of Adam, what need was there of the Holy Virgin?...It is on this account that He is said to have been "made in the likeness of flesh of sin;" not, as these men hold, in likeness of flesh, but of flesh of sin. It follows that He took our flesh with its natural affections "but did no sin." Jast as the death which is in the flesh, transmitted to us through Adam, was swallowed up by the Godhead, so was the sin taken away by the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus, so that in the resurrection we receive back the flesh neither liable to death nor subject to sin. Epistle 261

St. Basil expresses the sentiment I've expressed, and he is one of the chief movers of the Council of Constantinople in 381, thus establishing a deep connection. It would spell very poorly for both of us if the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were both headed by men with a heretical view of Christ's incarnation.

As a second, St. John the Damascene:

Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin. He dies, throuefore, because He took on Hinself on our behalf, an dHe makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus be delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and lifegiving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer...

...The word corruption has two meanings. For it signifies all human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body, and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord's body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The Body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption as the prophet David says, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption. -- An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith bk III chps. 27, 28

St. John is intimately connected with the theology of the Seventh Council. He, here, also says the same thing I have said. Christ accepted the corruption that is common to all men, but He committed no sin.

While these aren't the Ecumenical Councils, St. Athanasius whom I quoted earlier is the great defender of the faith at Nicea, and this theology as outlined in On The Incarnation formed his defense against the Arians at Nicea. St. Basil is one of the three great Cappodocean Fathers that defended against the Arians at Constantinople. St. John the Damascene was the cheif defender of the faith against the Arians. I doubt all three of these men are teaching heresy.

[Scott1]

Alright…. I think I know where we are now…. let’s see if I can explain it well enough!

I would like to be clear that we are trying to define the same thing…. What I mean is, we are not trying to debate Roman vs Orthodox…. We are attempting to define this topic in relation to catholic/orthodox (universal to both East and West) dogma.

We both agree that Christ’s body was without corruption, and that He did not sin during his lifetime… He lived a perfect life and died.

Your quotes from the Fathers are not heresy… I don’t believe that any of them were teaching heresy….. but, I believe you are. I believe you are misreading the texts and arguing the wrong point.

Let me explain:
You state:
“When Christ assumed a body. He cleansed the material and the human image within it.”
THIS is the heresy. THIS is the error, in my opinion.

Christ assumed human form… he did not ABSORB it.

Follow me on this… in your view, there has to be a blob of corrupt, sinful, humanity (apparently in the womb of Mary) that Jesus is somehow separate from. The divine Jesus then absorbs the blob and “cleans” it, transforming the blob of humanity into the spotless, uncorrupt flesh of the Son of God.

This teaching is not tough by the Fathers you quoted and not affirmed by ANY Council.

Mary’s corruption or lack thereof are not relevant to my argument… which has been my argument all along… the point has always been that Jesus assumed human form willingly, and that at no time was there corruption of his flesh from BIOLOGY. The Son of Man subjected HIMSELF to the corruption of humanity…. It was by HIS power that he humbled himself to take human flesh with its natural affections.

Again, Christ assumed human form and subjected HIMSELF to humanity.

Christ did not absorb corrupt flesh and “cleanse” it…. the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus were NEVER apart after the instant of the Incarnation…. He was fully God and fully man… NEVER two separate forms that were “joined” after a human form was cleansed.

I hope this explains well enough were my disagreement is…. I do understand that with the limitations of this form of communication, I could well be wrong about ….. well, everything…. and I offer this post to you in a humble nature… I have made no assumptions, and only would like to discuss this more…. and I pray that this discussion leads us both closer to Christ.

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

[No*s]

You're reading me a little wrong. I'm not a Monothelete . I never believed that Christ's human nature is absorbed by His divine nature. That would definately be Monotheletism, which results in Christ having a human form but only an active divine will. That is basically Monophysitism take two. Believe it or not you've read a very similar way to me.

Christ is one person in two natures without confusion and without wills. What I believe is from the posts I've made. I'll try and put this another way so as to avoid the confusion:

God made man in His image and His likeness. The image of God is a set of natural capacity to be like Him. This capacity is activated by God's dwelling within us activates those capacities and makes them function. However, when we fell, God's presence was rightly dimmed and we were cast out lest we live forever in that state. The image of God, thus, was distorted and buried. We could no longer achieve the likeness of God, because our capacity to do so had been damaged (not destroyed, which is what I'm sure the Adversary would have wanted).

Our capacities, thus distorted, were sold into bondage to Satan, Death, and Sin. These powers took our human nature and have clung to it ever since, and they attatch themselves to us and work their wills through us, almost like a parasite. This is the result of our ancestor's sin. Satan is the god of this world, and the powers of Sin and Death dominate us just as they do all the rest of nature.

Like I said, these hold onto us like a parasite, or in another sense, like an illness. They cause our bodies to decay, to grow corrupt, and to die. When Adam contracted this from his sin, his person was corrupted, and I cannot but think of the whole person, and thus, the person of Adam came under the complete dominion of the Adversary. His children could not help but be in this dominion, and so on and so forth, and in this way Sin reigns in life because Adam sinned and Death takes us all, both as a servant of Satan.

When Christ came, He is a member of the Godhead and is incorruptible, immortal, and ungenerated. The first thing that happened was Mary conceived, and Christ united with her flesh without confusion. This union destroyed the power of Sin and Corruption over the flesh and is the first step in salvation. Next, He lived His life under the complete dominion of the Enemy and submitted there, also, to His power but did not sin. Finally, Satan tried to destroy Him and took the bait, and thus, Christ submitted to death, which is the ultimate result of corruption.

When He completed this cycle, He rose from the dead, incorrupt and wholly victorious. In this way, He submitted Himself to the total power of the adversary, stripped Himself, and humiliated Himself, and thus shamed the Adversary, because Satan couldn't win even with total victory.

All of this is necessary, because Christ had to banish Sin, Death, and Satan. We were still sick and subject to them, so in each step Christ cleansed us, and in each step He did so by His submission to the corruption and death. Each means of defeating Satan was necessary, and in each place He triumphed where humanity failed. I was born with the same oppertunity to overcome corruption and death, but I couldn't resist. I wasn't strong enough. Christ was.

I hope that clears things up when I put it like that and start from the beginning. I realize that's all old-hat, but I felt I had better rephrase it from the beginning and do this in a way that avoids terminology that could confuse us. This is dependant on His unsullied divinity, because without it, He would have been taken by Satan, because Satan would have owned Him (the master of death couldn't control Life lol). Had He not taken full humanity, including our condition in every way, then He wouldn't have submitted completely to the bondage of the Adversary and thus broke it. Had He sinned, the Adversary's work would have been complete and we doomed. So, it was necessary for Christ to assume a nature like ours in every way. It was necessary for Him to be fully divine. It was necessary for Him to be without sin (never sin), because sin brings the subject under the power of Satan.

I hope that clears it up .

[Prima]

Heehee. I don't think I'm going to add another person with a strong opinion and hot temper in, so I'll just listen