OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 07:46:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 16-year-old Latin whiz finds new liturgy language lacking  (Read 8123 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2012, 07:12:51 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...

So from where I'm sitting the problems with the IC aren't so much that it says something ultimately different than Orthodoxy says (since both groups believe that the Theotokos never sinned), but that the means by which it makes that assertion leads to some really troubling questions that seem to warp or at least jeopardize the proper view of the incarnation.
I don't think the actual dogma (as opposed to what many of us Catholics may think) says Mary was incapable of sinning.

The dogma says that the Theotokos "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

The "stain" for us Roman Catholics would be both the guilt and concupisence, or the passions the rest of us have to constantly fight to avoid sinning. In other words, she would have been like Eve before the Fall when it comes to sinning. Not that she could not choose to sin...Adam and Eve were created without original sin, and apparently they could sin  Wink

So, I don't think she's outside human nature, merely fallen human nature, which in itself is hard enough to imagine.
"For He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us" II Cor. 5:21

No room for an "immaculate conception."  Were it needed, there is no reason why God couldn't so exempt every one from Eve to the Theotokos. Indeed, why shouldn't He?

Eve before the Fall was to live forever.  Hence the Immortalists of the Vatican, who believe she did not die, yet another heresy borne of the "Immaculate Conception."

The IC requires an intervention in creation, preventing the Holy Theotokos from being born from Adam and Eve.  Which defeats the purpose of the Incarnation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2012, 04:02:34 AM »

But how can you separate nature into human nature v. fallen human nature when the Theotokos was born after the fall which affected that human nature?

For what reason do RC theologians say that the Theotokos needed a savior, if her nature was not affected by the fall?

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Eve before the Fall was to live forever.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you seem to argue an Augustinian understanding of original sin.

I don't think any man alive can, our really should, say for sure.

Many hymns of the Church seem to indicate otherwise with words like panagia, hyperagia, achrantos, panagni and all those other superlatives. Would it therefore be strange to say that the Theotokos was free from sin? Lex orandi, lex credendi you know.

  Which defeats the purpose of the Incarnation.

Well, no, not exactly.

Note: I do not argue in favor of the IC dogma or its wording, I'm only saying that it isn't that bad as what it is often made out to be in polemics.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 04:24:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #92 on: November 21, 2012, 04:47:09 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #93 on: November 21, 2012, 04:55:29 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.

Was the flesh of Eve pre-fall different than her flesh post-fall? Did Eve even have flesh pre-fall? (I think Origen denied this, but it's early in the morning so I can't think clearly now - forgive me if I'm wrong in saying Origen claimed this)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 04:56:16 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2012, 05:19:23 AM »

That I don't know. I'm not very up on Origen, other than a few modern historical texts on his time as the head of the school at Alexandria.
Logged

jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2012, 05:24:32 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.

Was the flesh of Eve pre-fall different than her flesh post-fall? Did Eve even have flesh pre-fall? (I think Origen denied this, but it's early in the morning so I can't think clearly now - forgive me if I'm wrong in saying Origen claimed this)

Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man. We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved. If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2012, 05:35:00 AM »


Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man.

I am aware of that.


We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved.

St. Gregory the Theologian, epistle 101: to Cledonius. I'm well aware of that, yes.

If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

Well, here I think you're wrong. Christ did not have ancestral sin yet assumed human nature. According to your post that means we aren't saved. So was human nature different after the fall? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 05:35:51 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2012, 05:40:51 AM »


Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man.

I am aware of that.


We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved.

St. Gregory the Theologian, epistle 101: to Cledonius. I'm well aware of that, yes.

If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

Well, here I think you're wrong. Christ did not have ancestral sin yet assumed human nature. According to your post that means we aren't saved. So was human nature different after the fall? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.



In my opinion, you're undoubtedly wrong. The point is that Christ assumed fallen human nature. What makes you think He did not? If He did not, as you say, and yet you agree that what is not assumed is not saved then how can we be saved? We certainly have a fallen human nature.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2012, 05:41:42 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2012, 05:45:03 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2012, 06:16:06 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 06:25:50 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #101 on: November 21, 2012, 06:26:21 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

I always thought that Christ became like us in everthing but sin.

But the effect of the Ancestral Sin is not sin. That's, it seems to me, you coming at the idea from a western point of view. The effect of Ancestral Sin is such things as mortality, it's not that we're born guilty of Adam's sin, just that we suffer the consequences of it. The fact that we can believe that the Theotokos was born with a sinful nature and yet never sinned should illustrate what I mean clearly. We simply don't hold to an idea of sin being hereditary (that's a peculiarity of certain western streams of thought that even the RCC now seems to have moved away from).

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #102 on: November 21, 2012, 06:30:01 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

I always thought that Christ became like us in everthing but sin.

But the effect of the Ancestral Sin is not sin. That's, it seems to me, you coming at the idea from a western point of view. The effect of Ancestral Sin is such things as mortality, it's not that we're born guilty of Adam's sin, just that we suffer the consequences of it. The fact that we can believe that the Theotokos was born with a sinful nature and yet never sinned should illustrate what I mean clearly. We simply don't hold to an idea of sin being hereditary (that's a peculiarity of certain western streams of thought that even the RCC now seems to have moved away from).

James

I do know that but I can't see how the IC is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding. Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 06:30:12 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #103 on: November 21, 2012, 06:31:53 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2012, 06:40:44 AM »

I'm interested in what Papist has to say about this.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Justin Kolodziej
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2012, 01:43:27 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,518


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2012, 02:00:40 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2012, 02:11:43 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.

You would be correct.  And you would also be correct to say that Jesus did not assume a fallen human nature.  In fact you'd be correct to say that this conversation, in the main, demonstrates a very poor understanding of human nature in the first place...a very protestant one in fact. 

The "stain" of original sin, according to the Holy Fathers, including Augustine, was the darkening of the intellect/nous and the weakening of the will.  This "stain" was inherited but it did NOT mean that man's human nature had been entirely spoiled or changed from that which God created that was Good.

Most of the people here would not understand this as the long teaching of the Catholic Church because they do not KNOW the long teaching of the Catholic Church and are more than happy to parrot what they hear.

The Immaculate Conception means that at the very moment the Mother of God became a person, she had no darkened intellect and no weakened will.  That does NOT mean that she does not have a human nature any more than the fact that Jesus did not become the Incarnation with original sin as a part of his human nature means that He was any less human.

Also the Mother of God was liable to temptation and liable to death and corruption and to the feelings of sorrow and suffering.

God bless us all as we struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible.

M.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 02:12:33 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2012, 02:46:31 PM »

Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.

The only stupid thing that I can recall you posting.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2012, 02:48:11 PM »

I'm interested in what Papist has to say about this.

Why? You have EM now.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 02:48:27 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2012, 03:08:50 PM »

Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.

The only stupid thing that I can recall you posting.

 Wink +1
Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #111 on: November 21, 2012, 03:12:21 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #112 on: November 21, 2012, 03:15:40 PM »

If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion)
How responsible are any of us for our own holiness? Any time we resist sin in any way, it is only through God's Grace. Obviously, our free will has to cooperate with Grace, but we can never do it apart from Grace. Also, as others have already mentioned, the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the Theotokos' sinlessness throughout her life. Adam and Eve were immaculate before the fall, and they still fell. The Immaculate Conception did not render the Theotokos incapable of sinning. She still had free will, just as Adam and Eve did.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 21, 2012, 03:17:33 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided

The Mother of God is exceptional in so very many many ways.  It seems odd that you cannot seem to accept only one...very odd indeed... Wink
Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #114 on: November 21, 2012, 03:20:39 PM »

Oh, what's that? A non-answer? Oh, okay...
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 21, 2012, 03:23:13 PM »

Oh, what's that? A non-answer? Oh, okay...

It is that simple however.  She is exceptional.  That is hardly a non-answer.  It is just one that you do not like too much...oh...well...OK!!  Cool
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #116 on: November 21, 2012, 03:31:53 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided

My head is killing me so I want to talk more about pants size then dogma.

I have a simple question, do I recall correctly that you were an RC?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #117 on: November 21, 2012, 04:44:20 PM »

Yes. I was RC for about 5 or 6 years.
Logged

jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #118 on: November 22, 2012, 04:29:24 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

After the fall, no. Before, they were not fallen, were not mortal, so how could they not? I suspect that those of you who are of the contrary opinion mean nature in some different way and hence we are talking past one another. If you think the Fall had no effect on human nature, please could you explain what effect you think it did have (and I'm addressing this question to all of you)? Rome clearly, so, I've been led to believe, no longer adheres to the idea of inheritable sin, so if the fall had no effect on human nature and we don't inherit Adam's guilt, I struggle to see what you believe it did do and what exactly the Incarnation achieved. I know what I believe it did, and I know what I believe is Orthodox. I have absolutely no idea any more what you people seem to believe.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2012, 01:56:17 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

After the fall, no. Before, they were not fallen, were not mortal, so how could they not? I suspect that those of you who are of the contrary opinion mean nature in some different way and hence we are talking past one another. If you think the Fall had no effect on human nature, please could you explain what effect you think it did have (and I'm addressing this question to all of you)? Rome clearly, so, I've been led to believe, no longer adheres to the idea of inheritable sin, so if the fall had no effect on human nature and we don't inherit Adam's guilt, I struggle to see what you believe it did do and what exactly the Incarnation achieved. I know what I believe it did, and I know what I believe is Orthodox. I have absolutely no idea any more what you people seem to believe.

James

I am not intending to be patronizing when I say that you should, for a while, not think too much about it.  I have learned in the many years that I've cracked my head against these kinds of things that when I am totally confused it is best to go and immerse myself in prayer and fasting and liturgy and not worry so much about the details.  Then later go back to it refreshed.  It does help.

In the meantime it might be ok to realize that you really do not understand the Catholic perspective and that it may not be what you think it is.

Human nature is not the same as expressions of that nature.  I can express my humanity in many ways that are good and many ways that are not good.  Either way I am still human and not something other.  Barring fatal accident, it often takes a great deal of sin to result directly in physical death.  But even at that level of depravity, nature is still human.  It is also fallen, but fallen nature is still good.  On the other hand, with great grace, my nature can be perfected and become united to the divine nature in such a way that we can be participants in the divine life, but in that my nature remains a human nature.  That is something close to the Catholic position.  I say close because I have expressed things in very simple language.

The fact that my body can die or that I can suffer great sorrow or pain as the result of the fall does not make me less human than Adam or than Eve....for example.

M.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 01:57:28 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #120 on: November 22, 2012, 02:11:39 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2012, 03:07:54 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 03:08:50 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #122 on: November 22, 2012, 03:14:55 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.

It's fully protestant to throw out "It's fully protestant" as a response to anything. It's something even less to take "I believe that the fall had an effect on human nature" and assume that I'm suddenly a Calvinist and have said that it was "destroyed", or anything even close to that. Go away.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #123 on: November 22, 2012, 03:17:04 PM »

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...
There was a rather lively discussion about this in the thread linked below:

Immaculate Conception
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #124 on: November 22, 2012, 03:22:01 PM »

Thank you for the link, Apotheoun. Very interesting stuff in there, particularly the quotes you have shared from Fr. Hardon.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #125 on: November 22, 2012, 03:38:55 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

No, not really. It says that Mary was conceived without original sin, that she was not conceived in the same state as everyone else except Christ Himself.

I am vehemently opposed to the idea that Mary ever committed personal sins. Just ask Clemente or witega. But the Immaculate Conception is heresy.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 03:39:11 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 22, 2012, 03:41:47 PM »

Thank you for the link, Apotheoun. Very interesting stuff in there, particularly the quotes you have shared from Fr. Hardon.
Yes, the information provided by Fr. Hardon was interesting, and what he said seems to be in basic agreement with the texts I quoted from more than twenty other Roman Catholic theologians.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #127 on: November 22, 2012, 06:32:16 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into the Catholic Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 22, 2012, 06:57:59 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into a Catholic Church.

Yes...one of them
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: November 22, 2012, 07:04:31 PM »

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...
There was a rather lively discussion about this in the thread linked below:

Immaculate Conception

I said at the time and it is still true:

Father Hardon has never been recognized by the Church as being representative of either pre- or post-Vatican II teaching.  So all of your "wowing" is actually for nothing.

I will add this much only: There was an element in the Church from about the mid-1700s to the beginning of the 20th century who taught in such a way that free will was compromised.  That teaching has not withstood the test of time and though it remains in individuals who continue to think and teach that way, it has never been picked up as a formal part of Church teaching.

Dom Marmion has, for example.  Find his works and read them and you will see a very different approach from the French and Irish Jansenists who influenced Father Hardon.

If you are not that interested, don't bother, but don't expect to find much traction for your ideas outside of these kinds of venues where the history of the Catholic Church in any real accurate detail, is virtually unknown.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #130 on: November 22, 2012, 07:05:39 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.

It's fully protestant to throw out "It's fully protestant" as a response to anything. It's something even less to take "I believe that the fall had an effect on human nature" and assume that I'm suddenly a Calvinist and have said that it was "destroyed", or anything even close to that. Go away.
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #131 on: November 22, 2012, 07:08:34 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into a Catholic Church.

Yes...one of them
Well we have 15 of them.  All the same.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #132 on: November 22, 2012, 07:15:28 PM »

Quote
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.

I'm just saying she seems to be able to smell her own, since she's so sure I'm a protestant even though my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite a public event (I kept that day's bulletin from the church, St. Mark COC in Phoenix/Scottsdale, which I guess I might need now in case Maria makes any further demands that I identify myself!).

So com'on, Maria...let's be Protestants together! I'll protest the gross deformation of traditional ecclesiology and soteriology by the Roman Catholic Church, and you can continue to protest figments of Calvinism that you have constructed in your own mind and tried to force into my posts...sound good?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: November 22, 2012, 07:38:00 PM »

Quote
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.

I'm just saying she seems to be able to smell her own, since she's so sure I'm a protestant even though my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite a public event (I kept that day's bulletin from the church, St. Mark COC in Phoenix/Scottsdale, which I guess I might need now in case Maria makes any further demands that I identify myself!).

So com'on, Maria...let's be Protestants together! I'll protest the gross deformation of traditional ecclesiology and soteriology by the Roman Catholic Church, and you can continue to protest figments of Calvinism that you have constructed in your own mind and tried to force into my posts...sound good?

I had said that what you are talking about has been most clearly defined outside of the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.  That's just a simple fact of the history of theology.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: November 22, 2012, 08:52:46 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.

You would be correct.  And you would also be correct to say that Jesus did not assume a fallen human nature.  In fact you'd be correct to say that this conversation, in the main, demonstrates a very poor understanding of human nature in the first place...a very protestant one in fact.
You mean Calvinist, and no, it hasn't as a whole.

The "stain" of original sin, according to the Holy Fathers, including Augustine, was the darkening of the intellect/nous and the weakening of the will.  This "stain" was inherited but it did NOT mean that man's human nature had been entirely spoiled or changed from that which God created that was Good.

Most of the people here would not understand this as the long teaching of the Catholic Church because they do not KNOW the long teaching of the Catholic Church and are more than happy to parrot what they hear.
Although parroting what the Catholic Church doesn't represent the ideal, it could suffice for the simple. As to swallowing what the Vatican and its Scholastics want to regurgitate down the gullets of unsuspecting chicks...that's a different bird.

The Immaculate Conception means that at the very moment the Mother of God became a person, she had no darkened intellect and no weakened will.  That does NOT mean that she does not have a human nature any more than the fact that Jesus did not become the Incarnation with original sin as a part of his human nature means that He was any less human.
In Christ He was not any less divine, and as such His human nature united with and in His divine Person, thereby preserving His human nature.  For the IC to work, it requires hypostatic modification, rendering her the great exception rather than the great example, placing her outside of the progeny of Adam and Eve.  But then Maxmillian Kolbe solved that with his semi-incarnation doctrine.

Also the Mother of God was liable to temptation and liable to death and corruption and to the feelings of sorrow and suffering.
She died.  Subject to ancestral sin.  Not a voluntary sacrifice as her Son offered.
God bless us all as we struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible.
Like why people would make up problems to think ingenious solutions to their non-existent problem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.191 seconds with 72 queries.