OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 06:20:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christology: The body of Christ  (Read 1483 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« on: August 23, 2005, 01:03:09 PM »

There is a concensus of Orthodox belief that the body of Christ assumed our corruption to save us.ÂÂ  However, I've to find that the word "corruption" can mean different things (or perhaps the meaning to "assume our corruption" also needs clarification).ÂÂ  When I read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" for example, he would probably disagree and say that Christ's body was incorrupt at all times.

So there are two meanings to corruption that we have to set out:

1.ÂÂ  The result of the fall of Adam, such as passions, sufferings, and death.
2.ÂÂ  The seperation from God

As a result of reading St. Athanasius' book, and reading St. Maximus' writings, I believe we have to clarify what it means for Christ's body to be corrupt (frankly, I wish I can read the writings of Julian to see whether or not he was really a docetist).

It is clear Christ is 1, but not 2, for God can never be seperated from God.ÂÂ  St. Maximus the Confessor clarifies something interesting in one of his Ambigua I think (it's in "On the Cosmic Mystery of Christ") that Christ had the untainted divine Image of the Pre-fall Adam, but His body was that of the post-fall Adam, with all its passions and sufferings.ÂÂ  Thus Christ was born with a new TROPOS.

We also have to clarify exactly what it means to be consubstantial with Christ.ÂÂ  For it seems to St. Athanasius, Christ's body was not naturally weak.ÂÂ  It cannot "die of hunger" or die a natural death like us humans.ÂÂ  But simply, since it is united and interwoven with the "very Life" itself, He had to achieve death by the means simply from the hands of those who killed Him, and thus "submitting" Himself to death.

I however find both St. Athanasius and St. Maximus to be, possibly, in contradiction with St. Gregory who famously says, "What is not assumed is not saved."ÂÂ  Is it right to say Christ did not assume a naturually weak human body like St. Athanasius said?ÂÂ  Is it right to say that Christ was born with a pre-fall Image and without a gnomic will like St. Maximus said?

I want to hear from you all what you think because this is something of a mystery to me, and it seems to me what we should confess simply that Christ indeed DID suffer and DID die a painful death and DID INDEED suffer spiritual passions and DID get tempted.ÂÂ  To say His body is incorrupt or corrupt needs clarification so as to avoid docetism, while at the same time we do not want to divide the humanity and divinity of Christ.

God bless.

PSÂÂ  Sorry for the complicated question.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2005, 01:04:30 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2006, 06:45:08 AM »

Hey Mina,

I know you posted your above inquiry last year; but better late than never huh?

Quote
However, I've to find that the word "corruption" can mean different things (or perhaps the meaning to "assume our corruption" also needs clarification).


Okay, well let's agree on a set of defined terms and then we can proceed from there. I propose the following terms with their respective definitions:

Corruptability (associated words: corruptable): A natural state of being that renders one naturally susceptible to suffering, weakness, and mortality.

Incorruptability (associated words: incorruptable): A natural state of being that renders one immune from suffering, weakness, and mortality.

Corruption (associated words: corrupt): The experience of sin, and ignorance of objective goodness leading to a thwarted perception of the will of God, and consequently one's world and self.

Incorruption (associated words: Incorrupt): Communion and union with God.

To enhance the effectiveness, clarity and flow of this discussion, we will use the above terms according to their respective definitions in application to concepts and principles advocated by particular Fathers ,even if those particular Fathers used any of the above terms differently.

Quote
When I read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" for example, he would probably disagree and say that Christ's body was incorrupt at all times.

In accordance with the above defined terms, I can confidently say that St Athanasius believed the humanity of Christ to be corruptible, yet incorrupt. An issue that may cause some confusion revolves around the fact that according to St Athanasius the corruptibility of Christ's humanity was experienced voluntarily. However, this is to be understood not in the sense that He voluntarily submitted to corruptability in an incorruptable humanity (as Julianism dictates), but rather in the sense that being The Word of God Himself, He was not necessarily subject to the corruptability of the humanity that He hypostatically united to Himself in the first place, and thus it was experienced voluntarily in the sense that it did not have dominion over Him.

Quote
St. Maximus'


Don't forget yourself man. The Church has not canonised (and cannot possibly canonise) Maximus of Constantinople as a Saint, so respect her Tradition and address him appropriately.

Quote
I wish I can read the writings of Julian to see whether or not he was really a docetist

I don't get the impression that Julian was a docetist. He believed the sufferings of Christ to be true sufferings, and His death to be true death, He simply didn't believe the humanity of Christ to be naturally susceptible to such experiences.

Quote
St. Maximus the Confessor clarifies something interesting in one of his Ambigua I think (it's in "On the Cosmic Mystery of Christ") that Christ had the untainted divine Image of the Pre-fall Adam,


Christ is the very Image of God.

Quote
but His body was that of the post-fall Adam

His entire humanity was the post-fall humanity of Adam. One of the faulty premises of Julian of Halicarnassus however, was that the pre-fall Adam was incorruptible. St Athanasius makes it quite clear that the pre-fall Adam was corruptible.

Quote
Thus Christ was born with a new TROPOS.

The tropos of Maximus' Christology denotes the mode of willing; it's not something that one is born with since it's not a natural trait or characteristic, but rather a personal property.

I think I have addressed the rest of your post with what I have said above. Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2006, 06:50:27 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2006, 10:34:42 PM »

I understand that Fr. VC Samuel goes through great lengths talking about it.  What is interesting, and I agree with you on that point, is that Fr. VC Samuel exposes (or shows that St. Severus exposes) that Julian did think humanity to be created in "incorruptability," as opposed to "incorruption," which could be quite interesting.

But I want to go further than this.  Christ has the freedom to have either "incorruptibality" or "corruptibality," and chose the latter for His humanity.  Perhaps, this is what Julian is saying.  Also, we can't forget St. Athanasius also believed that Christ was not susceptible to human illness, which seems to agree with Julian somewhat.

I wrote a personal Christological commentary on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation."  I'll share it with you.  For now, during the year, I did come up with a plausible answer, which agrees beautifully with what you wrote here:

Quote
He was not necessarily subject to the corruptability of the humanity that He hypostatically united to Himself in the first place, and thus it was experienced voluntarily in the sense that it did not have dominion over Him.

This is exactly what the conclusion of the discussion I had in monachos.net was:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1567
Specifically, the 39th post:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=20200&postcount=39

I think St. Athanasius chose his words very carefully, that Christ submitted to corruptability, but was not victim to it.

Quote
I don't get the impression that Julian was a docetist. He believed the sufferings of Christ to be true sufferings, and His death to be true death, He simply didn't believe the humanity of Christ to be naturally susceptible to such experiences.

Now even though I got an answer to myself, and I'm quite happy with the answer that this is the Orthodox opinion, the next question to me is what Julian truly believed.  See, it is this last part I bolded that doesn't make sense to me.  How can a body that is not susceptible to death die unless He willed it to be susceptible?  It is logically impossible, and I still wonder whether the whole issue was either a misunderstanding or a self-contradiction on behalf of Julian (this may also explain why the Armenians were "Julianists" for a while; I still however want to know what happened at the council between the Armenians and Syrians that reached unity).

Quote
Christ is the very Image of God.

I was describing the humanity of Christ.

Quote
His entire humanity was the post-fall humanity of Adam. One of the faulty premises of Julian of Halicarnassus however, was that the pre-fall Adam was incorruptible. St Athanasius makes it quite clear that the pre-fall Adam was corruptible.

Well, actually, the problem was that whether Christ bore pre-fall or post-fall humanity.  Julian believed the pre, and St. Severus the post.  To St. Athanasius, both humanities are the same, the former being united with God which results in incorruptability, and the latter being seperated from God which results in corruptability.  Christ takes on humanity that is not victim to corruptability, but allows it to be susceptible to corruptability, while still being the Word of God, incorruptable, a new "tropos" as St. Maximus puts it.

Quote
The tropos of Maximus' Christology denotes the mode of willing; it's not something that one is born with since it's not a natural trait or characteristic, but rather a personal property.

No, not just the mode of willing, but the state of existence, i.e. corruptability or incorruptability.  St. Maximus was very clear that Christ came in an untainted image (that is in the humanity), while living in a corrupt humanity.  Christ did not sin (hence why he found it necessary to say that Christ's spirit/human image was incorrupt), but took on Adam's result of his sinning (corrupt body and soul, but not spirit).  This can be found in the compilation of some of his works "On the Cosmic Mystery of Christ."

As for the addition of "St.," I understand we don't canonize nor recognize him (heck, he's a dithelete heretic to us if we're super traditionalists).  But as you know, not only am I an ecumenist, but I have a deep respect for St. Maximus, not only in his theology (although I along with Fr. VC Samuel question his "disputation" with Pyrrhus), but in his life as a confessor, despite his, dare I say, "innocent" anathema against St. Severus and St. Dioscorus, pillars of faith.

Following in the next post, I will attach my "On the Incarnation" commentary document (who I sent to a friend more than a year ago) and then a question on Julian's Julianism I asked in the OO forum, but never received a lengthy discussion from.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: May 23, 2006, 10:42:03 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2006, 10:38:37 PM »

I don't feel the debate between St. Severus and Julian was not clear enough.

One begs to ask the question, did Julian truly deny that Christ died?  The answer I feel I'm getting is "NO."  From John of Ephesus' records, I don't feel Julian is getting a fair rap.

One may be shocked to read this from his first epistle to St. Severus:

Quote
And they quoted such things as these by way of extracts; but I, who set down the whole passage, made it my endeavour to show the opinion held, by numerous doctors. But they brought me also his sixty-seventh treatise, which was written by him on the subject of the holy Virgin, the Theotokos, and in it are contained the words, 'The body of our Lord was in no way subjected to the sin which belongs to corruption, hut was susceptible of death and of true burial, and He destroyed them in it.' And I indeed considered it to be an error in writing. And so, in order that the dispute may be solved by our being examined by you, I have also sent what I have written, and I am convinced that our fathers agree with it. And write to me at once, that I may know what opinions to hold on these matters, because I do not consider it right that we should again say that that which was not corrupted was susceptible of corruption. And pray that our life may be in unison with the grace of God.

It might be clear here that since he is contradicting St. Cyril, he may be in error.  But then reading more, I feel he may have misunderstood St. Cyril.

In his second epistle to St. Severus:

Quote
...I do not consider it possible for us to believe and hold that which is corruptible and that which is incorruptible to be the same. And, while we confess Him who by His stripes healed all men to be passible, yet we also know Him to be raised and exalted above passions; and, if He was mortal, yet we also confess that He trampled on death, and gave life to mortals through His death.

...

The holy Cyril writes, 'It is not easy for us to say that corruption can ever take hold of the flesh which was united to the Word'; and five lines lower down, 'It is a wonder and a miracle that a body naturally subject to corruption was raised.' And what is the idea which he wishes to bring out (for he is not at variance with himself in these things), if he was not in these words thinking of the corruption of universal nature? For He bore our infirmities of His own will and not by compulsion of nature ; and He took up our sins in His body on the tree, dying for our sin.

Julian shows that he truly believes in the death of Christ, but like many Orthodox theologians, His death did something, and not just part of a natural human cycle.  He also believed, as many Orthodox theologians, that He died out of His own will.  Many Holy Fathers may not have disagreed with Julian, including, IMHO, St. Athanasius himself, who at first glance may seem Julianist when reading his work "On the Incarnation."

I do not know the full Julianistic theology, but it seems clear enough that he believed Christ's body to be passible and mortal, which means he may have believed Christ to have truly suffered and died.  The "incorruption" vs. "corruption" debate between St. Severus and Julian is not at all clear to me as why it was a big deal at the time.  This also begs the question whether Justinian the Emperor himself denied Christ's suffering and death as well.

God bless.

Sincerely confused,

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2006, 06:41:46 AM »

Christ has the freedom to have either "incorruptibality" or "corruptibality," and chose the latter for His humanity.ÂÂ  Perhaps, this is what Julian is saying.

I don't think there is any indication that this is what Julian was saying. It would be a pretty stupid thing to say anyway; it doesn't make much sense.

Quote
Also, we can't forget St. Athanasius also believed that Christ was not susceptible to human illness, which seems to agree with Julian somewhat.

St Athanasius certainly believed the humanity of Christ to be corruptible i.e. naturally susceptible to death, suffering, illness, etc. What St Athanasius taught (which was even more explicitly and expressly taught by St Cyril) was that Christ nonetheless had dominion over the natural laws to which His humanity was naturally subject to, such that He had the ability to voluntarily suspend or manipulate those laws in order to consequently avoid illness.

Quote
How can a body that is not susceptible to death die unless He willed it to be susceptible?ÂÂ  It is logically impossible

It is by virtue of its being logically impossible that Julian's doctrine was taken to its logical conclusion, leading to his being accused of crypto-docetism. If Christ's humanity was by nature incorruptible, then any alleged submission to corruptability must have been a phantasy.

Quote
Well, actually, the problem was that whether Christ bore pre-fall or post-fall humanity.

As I implied, the distinction between pre-fall and post-fall humanity is superfluous. Julian argued for a pre-fall humanity because he held there to be a difference between pre-fall and post-fall humanity. St Severus stressed post-fall humanity only to emphasise to the Julianists the very nature of Christ's humanity according to their own terms. I have never been under the impression that St Severus held there to be a difference between pre-fall and post-fall humanity on his own terms. In fact, according to Fr. Meyendroff, St Severus regarded the pre-fall Adam to be incorruptible only insofar as he particpated in the divine incorruptability (i.e. man was incorrupt according to the term defined in my original post); he did not hold the pre-fall Adam to be incorruptible by nature.ÂÂ  

Quote
But as you know, not only am I an ecumenist

So you are a heretic? Let me clarify...I'm not one of those who automatically equates the term Ecumenist to heretic, but in this case your "ecumenism" leads you to disregard and challenge the canonical Tradition of the Church, so I find it befitting to equate the term in the context you understand it with the nasty 'h' word.

Quote
but I have a deep respect for [...] Maximus, not only in his theology

And I have a deep respect for C.S. Lewis in consideration of his theology; that doesn't make him a canonical Saint of the Oriental Orthodox Church, and hence does not give me the right to regard him as a Saint. Period.

Quote
despite his, dare I say, "innocent" anathema against St. Severus and St. Dioscorus, pillars of faith.

There is no such thing as an innocent anathema, and I find it disgraceful that you as an OO would try to uphold Sts. Dioscorus and Severus as pillars of the faith, whilst simultaneously attempting to defend your right to declare their ecclesiastical opponent a Saint.

I think i've pretty much addressed your other post in my above answers to your initial response.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2006, 06:55:39 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2006, 10:49:44 AM »

Quote
I don't think there is any indication that this is what Julian was saying. It would be a pretty stupid thing to say anyway; it doesn't make much sense.

I don't think there's anything stupid about the latter sentence.  I believe someone like St. Athanasius chose his words carefully.  He did not say that the body was corruptable, but was submitted to be corruptible.  Like you said here:

Quote
St Athanasius certainly believed the humanity of Christ to be corruptible i.e. naturally susceptible to death, suffering, illness, etc. What St Athanasius taught (which was even more explicitly and expressly taught by St Cyril) was that Christ nonetheless had dominion over the natural laws to which His humanity was naturally subject to, such that He had the ability to voluntarily suspend or manipulate those laws in order to consequently avoid illness.

It seems to me that St. Athanasius' Christ is a Christ who choses which corruptions He partakes of and which corruptions He doesn't.  He partakes of hunger and pain, but a simple flu, He never received.  That to me more than anything is quite odd, and I never seemed to have gotten around that.  In this case, how is Christ fully corruptable?

I would be interested to see what you think about what I attached.

Quote
It is by virtue of its being logically impossible that Julian's doctrine was taken to its logical conclusion, leading to his being accused of crypto-docetism. If Christ's humanity was by nature incorruptible, then any alleged submission to corruptability must have been a phantasy.

Which is one reason why I look forward for the day when all the discourses between St. Severus and Julian are translated.

Now, as for the rest, it is rather insulting that you would call me a heretic.  I don't think being an ecumenist in the context I use is a heretic, neither do I believe that I broke any Dogmas or Traditions of the OO Church.  I could answer back your claims, but since this is not the subject of the thread, I will refrain from doing so.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: May 25, 2006, 10:50:41 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2006, 11:27:36 AM »

Quote
He [St Athanasius] did not say that the body was corruptable, but was submitted to be corruptible.ÂÂ  Like you said here:

The quote of mine which you provided does not agree with your interpretation of St Athanasius’ Christology. In contrast to the underlined clause above, I stated:

St Athanasius certainly believed the humanity of Christ to be corruptible i.e. naturally susceptible to death, suffering, illness, etc. What St Athanasius taught (which was even more explicitly and expressly taught by St Cyril) was that Christ nonetheless had dominion over the natural laws to which His humanity was naturally subject to, such that He had the ability to voluntarily suspend or manipulate those laws in order to consequently avoid illness.

St Athanasius certainly taught, as with St Severus of Antioch, that Christ’s body was corruptible:

  • St Athanasius: “Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.”
  • St Severus: "[H]e assumed a mortal and corruptible body which, [and thus] for this reason, was liable to suffer, along with the flesh he made his own its passions as well.

The question of voluntary submission concerns not the nature of that corruptibility, but rather how that corruptibility is experienced.

Quote
Now, as for the rest, it is rather insulting that you would call me a heretic.


I choose my words very carefully man. I did not deem you a heretic, but rather asked you to consider the question that heresy is the implied product of your “ecumenist” position which compels you to regard figures outside the canonical boundaries of the Church as Saints.

I apologise if I did not make this clear enough.

Quote
neither do I believe that I broke any Dogmas or Traditions of the OO Church.

In light of the premise that canonical Saints cannot exist outside the boundaries of the canonical Oriental Orthodox Church, you implicitly challenge the Ecclesiological Tradition of the Church.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2006, 11:30:29 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2006, 12:35:42 PM »

St. Athanasius did not directly say that the body was "corruptable."  In fact, he would say the body was "incorruptable" more than it was corruptable.  I made mention of a few quotes in the Word document I attached.

For example, he was very clear in saying this:

Quote
But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it.

Therefore, it is not enough to call someone a heretic by saying that he doesn't believe humanity was not "naturally liable" to corruption, when in fact, the premise is started by the fact that since one is united to God, then it loses its corruptability.  Thus, it was necessary that St. Athanasius would say that such a body was voluntarily made subject to corruptability, not itself corruptable.

And even though in other areas he made it clear that Christ's body was mortal, a humanity that is interwoven with Life is not mere mortal:

Quote
...the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off. Suppose the Word had come outside the body instead of in it, He would, of course, have defeated death, because death is powerless against the Life. But the corruption inherent in the body would have remained in it none the less. Naturally, therefore, the Savior assumed a body for Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth remain immortal. For once having put op corruption, it could not rise, unless it put on life instead; and besides this, death of its very nature could not appear otherwise than in a body. Therefore He put on a body, so that in the body He might find death and blot it out. And, indeed, how could the Lord have been proved to be the Life at all, had He not endued with life that which was subject to death?

The question is much more complex than saying whether the humanity is liable to death or not.  Humanity is always liable to death.  It's whether the body was liable to death on its own or voluntarily.  In this case, since the humanity is "interwoven" with Life, the body no longer remained "mortal," but rather took a body so that He can "find death" and corruption and mortality, and destroy them all with the special humanity He has while still experiencing and saving all things human.

Quote
I choose my words very carefully man. I did not deem you a heretic, but rather asked you to consider the question that heresy is the implied product of your “ecumenist” position which compels you to regard figures outside the canonical boundaries of the Church as Saints.
...
In light of the premise that canonical Saints cannot exist outside the boundaries of the canonical Oriental Orthodox Church, you implicitly challenge the Ecclesiological Tradition of the Church.

Well, in this case, rest assured, when I put the title "St." in front of St. Maximus, it is no different than putting "St." in front of St. Thomas Aquinas, figures who are always given the title "St." even by non-Christian scholars who seem to only do it for respect.  Might I add that you can't compare C.S. Lewis with St. Maximus, since C.S. Lewis has not been canonized by any Church at all.

As for ecclesiological questions, please refer to the thread I started in the private discussions.  One of the things I wish to define there is how you see that I "challenge" ecclesiological tradition, unless you define what that the Tradition is exactly.

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2006, 05:24:25 AM »

Quote
St. Athanasius did not directly say that the body was "corruptable."


Yes he did. He directly implied it:

  • "His body, as having a common substance with all men, for it was a human body (though, by a new marvel, it subsisted of the Virgin alone), yet being mortal, died after the common course of the like natures" and,
  • yielding His own Body to come unto death, in that it was capable of death”   and,
  • Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.”

Quote
In fact, he would say the body was "incorruptable" more than it was corruptable.

Christ’s humanity was either corruptible or incorruptible; it can’t be more of one and less of the other. According to St Athanasius, Christ’s humanity was corruptible. Period.

Quote
For example, he was very clear in saying this:
Quote
But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it.

The context of this sentence reveals the fact that St Athanasius is discussing the Resurrection:

The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it.

What he is saying therefore, is not that the indwelling of the Word deemed Christ’s humanity naturally incorruptible (and hence immortal), for His humanity was clearly naturally subject to death (as explicitly recognised by St Athanasius according to the underlined clause), but rather that the indwelling of the Word was able to transform that corruptibility to incorruptibility via His Holy Resurrection. Christ's humanity was only incorruptible subsequent to His Resurrection, but not prior. St Cyril himself clearly implies this when he says: "After the resurrection, the body was the same as that which had undergone suffering, although it no longer had human frailties and was incorruptible."

Corruption “did not touch” Christ in the sense that death did no have dominion over Him; He was not the victim of death if you will. This is the same point St Luke the Apostle makes in applying Psalm 16:10 to the Resurrection of Christ in Acts 2:27; it is also the same point St Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 15:42.

Quote
Therefore, it is not enough to call someone a heretic by saying that he doesn't believe humanity was not "naturally liable" to corruption, when in fact, the premise is started by the fact that since one is united to God, then it loses its corruptability.

You’re clearly confused. The humanity of Christ does not lose its corruptability by virtue of the hypostatic union; that is something Julian argued. St Cyril, like St Athanasius, hinted at some sort of an incorruptibility established by virtue of the hypostatic union. However, in light of St Cyril’s clear admission that Christ’s humanity only became incorruptible subsequent to His Resurrection, we are to interpret any talk of pre-Resurrection incorruptibility in the sense of the voluntary immunity that His corruptible humanity shared by virtue of The Person of the Word's dominion over the natural laws to which His corruptible humanity was naturally subject to.

Quote
a humanity that is interwoven with Life is not mere mortal:

St Athanasius is not saying that the corruptible nature of humanity becomes naturally incorruptible (and hence immortal) subsequent to the hypostatic union, He is merely saying that by virtue of the hypostatic union He wasn’t necessarily subject to the mortality that His humanity was naturally susceptible to, since He in fact had the ability to suspend those natural laws according to His will, for as He stated in John 10:18, He has the power/authority to lay down His life, and the power/authority to raise it up again.

Another flaw of the Julian interpretation is that it assigns a status to the humanity of Christ independent of the hypostatic union, which makes no sense since that humanity had no reality prior to the hypostatic union.

Quote
Well, in this case, rest assured, when I put the title "St." in front of St. Maximus, it is no different than putting "St." in front of St. Thomas Aquinas

Ofcourse there's no difference. As with Maximus of Constantinople, Thomas Aquinas is outside of the canonical boundaries of the Oriental Orthodox Church. You challange the Tradition of the Oriental Orthodox Church by referring to either one or the other, or both, as "Saints".

Quote
non-Christian scholars who seem to only do it for respect

When did you become a non-Christian scholar? The title Saint denotes much more than mere "respect" within the context of the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
Might I add that you can't compare C.S. Lewis with St. Maximus, since C.S. Lewis has not been canonized by any Church at all.

What a ridiculous excuse. So not only is your recognition of Saints excercised contrary to the Tradition of the Church, but it is contingent upon the standards of other Churches?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 05:25:37 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2006, 09:50:26 AM »

Like I said before, define exactly what "tradition" I am challenging.  You may personally wish not to add "St." to someone, but I like to give respect to whom I respect.

Seriously dude.  You really took this OO/EO thing too far.  Just stick with the OP, and if you want to debate it, refer to what I started in the private thread.

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2006, 10:14:31 AM »

Quote
Just stick with the OP

I have addressed all the substantial issues presented in your initial post and subsequent responses. I have responded to the rest of your comments in the private section so that this thread can stay focused on Julianism vs. Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 12:47:45 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,883


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2006, 12:43:58 AM »

I have addressed all the substantial issues presented in your initial post and subsequent responses. I have responded to the rest of your comments in the private section so that this thread can stay focused on Julianism vs. Orthodoxy.

Sweet,

Well, so far you seem to explain to me very well many things and clear the confusions in my head.  If anything comes up, I'll post more questions.

In the meantime, please, take the time to read my "commentary" and correct anything that I may have confused myself with.

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2006, 06:15:30 AM »

Sweet,

Well, so far you seem to explain to me very well many things and clear the confusions in my head.ÂÂ  If anything comes up, I'll post more questions.

I'm glad I could help. A word of advice: study St Athanasius, St Cyril, and St Severus together. Trust me, things will make a whole lot more sense. St Severus is the one who truly opened my eyes to both St Cyril and St Athanasius to be honest.

Quote
In the meantime, please, take the time to read my "commentary" and correct anything that I may have confused myself with

It seems pretty long, and i'm a busy chap these days so I can't promise anything. Taking a cursory glance at it, I can at least say for now that I don't agree with your methodology. You can't break On the Incarnation down sentence by sentence and passage by passage the way you did; I already corrected a flawed interpretation illicited from such an approach, in my previous post.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 06:42:53 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Tags: Julianism Christology 
Pages: 1   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 0.096 seconds with 40 queries.