Orthodoxy and the Immaculate Conception

[George Blaisdell]

Catholic Xian - I just noticed your header -

What is a "LITURGY NAZI"???
And why do you identify yourself as one?

And am I right in assuming that Xian means a member of generation X, the children of the children of WWII?

Arsenios

[CatholicXian]

Catholic Xian - I just noticed your header -

What is a "LITURGY NAZI"???
And why do you identify yourself as one?

I have an obsession/fascination with Liturgy (i.e., any and all liturgical documents/books/articles I can get my hands on to read and digest, I will)
... while I was at a predominantly "Catholic" school (I just transferred for this upcoming semester) with questionable liturgical practices, I complained about them so much (to fellow students and to those in charge) that a few of my friends branded me a "Liturgy Nazi"-- as in, a priest makes a mistake in the Liturgy and I will definitely notice, and probably say something afterwards. (I don't take extreme issue with honest mistakes--like old age/forgetfulness or what have you), but I have a hard time getting along in any parish that doesn't celebrate the Liturgy by the rubrics intentionally.

And am I right in assuming that Xian means a member of generation X, the children of the children of WWII?

Xian=Christian (Chi-Ro=XP (first two greek letters of XPICTOC=Christos), thus, "X" can be a shorthand version of the Greek for Christ)
Easier way to write Catholic Christian.

Off to read your other post before I'm to sleep!

[Rusty T]

Just wanted to say that this is how all dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics will be conducted from henceforth (wish I could enforce that directive!). What a great thread. Thanks to all.

Rusty

[CatholicXian]

Fallen human nature, the nature that Christ came to deliver us from, is dead human nature, having but the image, and not the likeness, of God. Human nature prior to the fall was alive, and Adam and Eve were fully alive. It is not them, the fully alive ones, that Christ came to save, yes? It is the fallen ones, who are dead in Adam, who walk in the shadow of death, who are humans upon this earth IN Adam - It is THESE that Christ came to redeem, yes?

Yes...

So that setting up the hieuristic of "completely different" in the two human natures, the one alive and the other dead, is not needed. One is alive, the other dead - both human. In fallen human terms, the difference is akin to that between the mourner at the gravesite, and the corpse in the ground. Are they "completely different"?? Well, yes and no, yes? They both have two arms... Maybe...

Well, I was mostly trying to understand whether you viewed the fallen/immaculate human natures as something completely different... But, if they are not different, why MUST Christ have a fallen human nature in order to redeem human nature?

Did He not come to call sinners to repentance? It is fallen human nature that He came to save, not 'immaculate' human nature. I mean, the Bible records that when Adam and Eve fell, all creation fell with them... It is this problem that Christ came to RECTIFY - [That is a good word in the DIK family, for DIK = RECT=Right] - to make right... And to do so, he came as the Son of Man, yet fully God - He came fully subject to sins, and the temptations thereto, as any of us, and indeed all of us, yet did no sin, and because he was tempted, and suffered temptation, just as we do, yet did not Himself sin, so too are we enabled, in Him, to live righteous lives of repentance.

Yes, but I don't see why Christ NEEDS a fallen human nature to restore creation, rather than just a human nature period.

So am I correct in my reading of this that Rome regards baptism itself as the annointing, and does not have the sacrament of annointing with oil following baptism? The Orthodox sure do, and it is called the Mystery of Chrismation, and it confers the seal of the Holy Spirit... Is there Chrismation following baptism in the Roman Catholic Church?

No... those who are baptized are indeed anointed with oil immediately following their baptism. The rite of annointing is tied up, thus included, with the Sacrament. But it is indeed an instrinsic part of the Baptismal celebration to annoint the head with the sacred chrism.

Are you beginning to see the difference between human nature alive in Christ, and Human nature born in fallen Adam, and human nature in the Garden, and human nature in those mature in the faith? I mean, yes, they are all human natures, but Christ took on what He came to heal, and that was the human nature fallen from Adam, which is why the conception of His mother cannot be immaculate, for were it so, he would not have taken on the human nature of you and me, who are most assurredly NOT immaculate, yes?

No, I am not immaculate. But I bet it'd be nice!
However, if we say that Christ took on a fallen human nature, and at the same time confess Christ to be truly (FULLY) man then we would have to confess the person of Christ as manifested to us to be fallen; and if Christ was a fallen man, how could it be He that saved us? For being fallen would exclude Him from being Immaculate (and that would be impossible for Him as God to be stained).

(for anyone else jumping into the conversation, I am NOT saying that Christ did not save us, for I fully believe Him to be Redeemer and Savior... just trying to understand the Orthodox view of Original Sin)

[CatholicXian]

Just wanted to say that this is how all dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics will be conducted from henceforth (wish I could enforce that directive!). What a great thread. Thanks to all.

I agree. This is the best messageboard I've been on yet. So much charity and actual discussion.. I've been learning a GREAL deal and been finding a lot to examine and ponder.

You all have been wonderful thus far!

[Rusty T]

However, if we say that Christ took on a fallen human nature, and at the same time confess Christ to be truly (FULLY) man then we would have to confess the person of Christ as manifested to us to be fallen; and if Christ was a fallen man, how could it be He that saved us? For being fallen would exclude Him from being Immaculate (and that would be impossible for Him as God to be stained).

So, what does it mean to be fallen? Was Christ's body subject to defects? Was he subject to hunger, thirst, the need for sleep? Was his body subject to death?

Just curious what your answer is.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Yes...


Well, I was mostly trying to understand whether you viewed the fallen/immaculate human natures as something completely different... But, if they are not different, why MUST Christ have a fallen human nature in order to redeem human nature?

I apologize for not being very clear - Fallen human nature and immaculate [eg pre-fallen] human nature are not completely different, and yet they have differences, and the difference is that one is alive, and one is dead. And Christ came to redeem the dead from death unto life, and He did so by taking upon Himself our mortal [dead] - eg fallen - human nature and RAISED that nature in Himself to the very Throne of the Most High.

Orthodoxy has always taught, and the pre-1054 Roman Church as well always taught, this dotrine, for the pre-1054 Roman Church was Orthodox.

Yes, but I don't see why Christ NEEDS a fallen human nature to restore creation, rather than just a human nature period.

It is because He is restoring life to FALLEN human nature, and not just to human nature in general, and most certainly not to pre-fallen human nature, so that He took upon Himself that which was broken, that He should 'fix' it, the 'it' being us who live in the shadow of death, in the sins thereof, in Adam...

No... those who are baptized are indeed anointed with oil immediately following their baptism. The rite of annointing is tied up, thus included, with the Sacrament. But it is indeed an instrinsic part of the Baptismal celebration to annoint the head with the sacred chrism.

Good - You still have that...

No, I am not immaculate. But I bet it'd be nice!
However, if we say that Christ took on a fallen human nature, and at the same time confess Christ to be truly (FULLY) man then we would have to confess the person of Christ as manifested to us to be fallen;

"Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father..."

Christ took on our flesh, and the desires and passions and lusts thereof, and the whole of our sinful natures, except for sin... That is how He brings us forth. I do not think we can take this much further - You will find this teaching in your own Church prior to the schism...

and if Christ was a fallen man, how could it be He that saved us? For being fallen would exclude Him from being Immaculate (and that would be impossible for Him as God to be stained).

That is simply not true - For He "died", and look what happenned to death! He walked in a human and fleshy body, and look what happened to that body! He ascended bodily!

Christ is RISEN!!

Arsenios

Heading for bed!

[spiritmech]

So, what does it mean to be fallen? Was Christ's body subject to defects? Was he subject to hunger, thirst, the need for sleep? Was his body subject to death?

Just curious what your answer is.

rusty

Hunger, thirst, sleep: Yes, yes, yes. But so was Adam, before he fell.
sm

[Rusty T]

Found an interesting passage in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Rm. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Is. 53:4, "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Phil. 2:7: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."

[George Blaisdell]

Hunger, thirst, sleep: Yes, yes, yes. But so was Adam, before he fell.
sm

Dear sm -

This is a new doctrine to my ears, that hunger, thirst and sleep were Adam's lot before he fell. Now I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that what you mean is that in the manner that we hunger, thirst, and grow tired unto sleep as fallen persons, that it is in this manner that Adam as well hungered and thirsted and tired...

From the Eastern perspective, there is a fundamental difference in kind between the eating, and the thirsting, and the tiring, of the living, and that of the dead - Of pre-fall vs post fall Adam. Post fall Adam was clothed in skins to cover his nakedness of which he was ashamed and hid from God... This Adam hungered and thirsted much differently from the Adam who was clothed in the radiance of God and had Life...

Do you have any patristic quotes that the hungering and thirsting and tiring of pre-fall and post-fall Adam were the same? You could be right, and I could just be ignorant... I do know that NOW, post-fall, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..." Yet prior to the fall, living in the radiance of God, righteousness had not been lost...

And another little question? Does the Roman Church regard the Beattitudes as commands? Or as descriptives?

Christ is Risen!!

Arsenios

[CatholicXian]

Wow, you are certainly giving me a lot of things to think over and examine. (thanks again for being patient with all my questions!)

I apologize for not being very clear - Fallen human nature and immaculate [eg pre-fallen] human nature are not completely different, and yet they have differences, and the difference is that one is alive, and one is dead. And Christ came to redeem the dead from death unto life, and He did so by taking upon Himself our mortal [dead] - eg fallen - human nature and RAISED that nature in Himself to the very Throne of the Most High.

I agree that Christ came to raise the dead to life, however, I'm still investigating whether He needed a fallen human nature, or just merely a human nature to do so. For while being truly human, Christ was at the same time truly God.

Orthodoxy has always taught, and the pre-1054 Roman Church as well always taught, this dotrine, for the pre-1054 Roman Church was Orthodox.

I'm not a history buff, so I'll keep my mouth closed. Though, it's funny how the last bit I'd turn the other way around: the pre-1054 Orthodox Church was Catholic (Roman is just one rite of the Church, albeit the biggest and most "popular"--to use the term loosely)

It is because He is restoring life to FALLEN human nature, and not just to human nature in general, and most certainly not to pre-fallen human nature, so that He took upon Himself that which was broken, that He should 'fix' it, the 'it' being us who live in the shadow of death, in the sins thereof, in Adam...

[snip]

"Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father..."

Christ took on our flesh, and the desires and passions and lusts thereof, and the whole of our sinful natures, except for sin... That is how He brings us forth. I do not think we can take this much further - You will find this teaching in your own Church prior to the schism...

[snip]

That is simply not true - For He "died", and look what happenned to death! He walked in a human and fleshy body, and look what happened to that body! He ascended bodily!

All of the above are very interesting points which I shall have to ponder further, even in examination of my own faith.
However, I'm also wondering, because of Christ's two natures (i.e., human & divine)... would not One who is God have the power to lay down--subject to death--a human nature which is immaculate? Adam and Even (pre-Fall) were immaculate, yet they were still subject to temptation, etc. (otherwise there'd have been no Fall). For me, to say that Christ had a fallen nature would be to say that His passions, will, and soul were disordered-- and I can't do that.
I also think I need to read back through our discussion of what Original Sin is and what it entails. For I would say that it is more than just mortality-- it was the twisting of our properly ordered souls into concupiscence and disorder (the loss of integrity), the loss of immortality, etc.
So perhaps this should be the first stepping stone?

[CatholicXian]

Tizz... where the Aquinas quote come from? I've been trying to find it in the Summa

[spiritmech]

Oh Lord, no. Tiring and sleeping and eating and drinking WERE fundamentally different pre-fall and post-fall.

I think I would like to retract my identification of Jesus with Adam, either pre- or post-fall. There's too many nuances that I have skipped over.

sm

Dear sm -

This is a new doctrine to my ears, that hunger, thirst and sleep were Adam's lot before he fell. Now I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that what you mean is that in the manner that we hunger, thirst, and grow tired unto sleep as fallen persons, that it is in this manner that Adam as well hungered and thirsted and tired...

From the Eastern perspective, there is a fundamental difference in kind between the eating, and the thirsting, and the tiring, of the living, and that of the dead - Of pre-fall vs post fall Adam. Post fall Adam was clothed in skins to cover his nakedness of which he was ashamed and hid from God... This Adam hungered and thirsted much differently from the Adam who was clothed in the radiance of God and had Life...

Do you have any patristic quotes that the hungering and thirsting and tiring of pre-fall and post-fall Adam were the same? You could be right, and I could just be ignorant... I do know that NOW, post-fall, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..." Yet prior to the fall, living in the radiance of God, righteousness had not been lost...

And another little question? Does the Roman Church regard the Beattitudes as commands? Or as descriptives?

Christ is Risen!!

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Tizz... where the Aquinas quote come from? I've been trying to find it in the Summa

Third part, question fourteen, article one: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401401.htm

[CatholicXian]

Third part, question fourteen, article one: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401401.htm

Thanks.

I've been doing a bit more reading through the "Summa", thinking over whether or not "being subject to" is the same as "possessing" and things of that nature.