Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[1Tim215Mommy]

How is, let us say, Greek Orthodox in relation to Orthodoxy vs a Korean Catholic parish in relation to the Catholic Church? Is the Greek Church ‘farther away’ from the Orthodox Church or is Orthodoxy…and I am already seeing the number of regional Orthodox Churches as Jimmy was pointing out… How better can we get over this hurdle of misunderstanding?

Your question: How is Greek Orthodox in relation to Orthodoxy? hmmm struggling to answer this question because it’s like trying to answer “How is my Mommy in relation to my Mother?”

Let me try this long answer. The Orthodox Church is One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic.

One: All the Orthodox Churches make up the entire Body of Christ which has One Head, Our Lord Jesus Christ. We celebrate One Eucharist Celebration. One in Liturgies.

Holy: Jesus set us apart from this World. In Baptism we put on Christ our God. In Chrismation we receive the Holy Spirit our God. Entering the Divine Liturgy is entering Heaven on earth. Icons are windows into Heaven. Eating the Eucharist is eating the Body of Christ our God. Everything we do is set aside for and done in Thanksgiving to God, even things as basic as sleeping and eating.

Catholic: A Greek word which means “Whole & Complete” in Orthodoxy aka the Orthodox Church, where the Bishop is, there is the catholic (whole & complete) Orthodox Church.

Apostolic: Every Bishop can trace his lineage back to one of the Apostles and maintains the Teachings of the Apostles and the Canons of the Apostles (although just as the Bible says in 2 Peter 2:1, some Bishops have fallen into heresy and their teachings are rejected and by synod or council they may be disposed or anathamatized, for example Bishop Arius and Pope Honorius)

Within the Orthodox Church, every single Bishop, including Bishops called Metropolitian and thos Bishops called Patriarch, is equal with all the other Bishops. The single, as in only, Head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

Bishops are given title of Metropolitan or Patriarch based on the secular significance of the city. In one of the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged of being a Patriarch due to Rome being the ancient imperial city and that the Bishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, is also Patriarch, as are the Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria & Moscow. Metropolitans are Bishops of smaller less significant cities that are still large, like the Bishop of San Francisco is called Metropolitan.

In the United States, Australia, Canada and other places which have had imigrants. The Orthodox Church has come into those countries brought by the imigrants which is why the name Greek, Russian, Serbian are used in front of Orthodox Church to differientiate which country the parish founding imigrants are from. Usually in these Churches, the language of the imigrants is used along with a greater or lesser degree of English is used in the Liturgies celebrated within the parish.

In conclusion Greek Orthodox is no more or less Orthodox than Russian Orthodox is Orthodox. All Orthodox Churches, all Bishops, are equal.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

How is, let us say, Greek Orthodox in relation to Orthodoxy vs a Korean Catholic parish in relation to the Catholic Church? Is the Greek Church ‘farther away’ from the Orthodox Church or is Orthodoxy…and I am already seeing the number of regional Orthodox Churches as Jimmy was pointing out… How better can we get over this hurdle of misunderstanding?

Your question: How is Greek Orthodox in relation to Orthodoxy? hmmm struggling to answer this question because it’s like trying to answer “How is my Mommy in relation to my Mother?”

Let me try this long answer. The Orthodox Church is One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic.

One: All the Orthodox Churches make up the entire Body of Christ which has One Head, Our Lord Jesus Christ. We celebrate One Eucharist Celebration. One in Liturgies.

Holy: Jesus set us apart from this World. In Baptism we put on Christ our God. In Chrismation we receive the Holy Spirit our God. Entering the Divine Liturgy is entering Heaven on earth. Icons are windows into Heaven. Eating the Eucharist is eating the Body of Christ our God. Everything we do is set aside for and done in Thanksgiving to God, even things as basic as sleeping and eating.

Catholic: A Greek word which means “Whole & Complete” in Orthodoxy aka the Orthodox Church, where the Bishop is, there is the catholic (whole & complete) Orthodox Church.

Apostolic: Every Bishop can trace his lineage back to one of the Apostles and maintains the Teachings of the Apostles and the Canons of the Apostles (although just as the Bible says in 2 Peter 2:1, some Bishops have fallen into heresy and their teachings are rejected and by synod or council they may be disposed or anathamatized, for example Bishop Arius and Pope Honorius)

Within the Orthodox Church, every single Bishop, including Bishops called Metropolitian and thos Bishops called Patriarch, is equal with all the other Bishops. The single, as in only, Head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

Bishops are given title of Metropolitan or Patriarch based on the secular significance of the city. In one of the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged of being a Patriarch due to Rome being the ancient imperial city and that the Bishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, is also Patriarch, as are the Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria & Moscow. Metropolitans are Bishops of smaller less significant cities that are still large, like the Bishop of San Francisco is called Metropolitan.

In the United States, Australia, Canada and other places which have had imigrants. The Orthodox Church has come into those countries brought by the imigrants which is why the name Greek, Russian, Serbian are used in front of Orthodox Church to differientiate which country the parish founding imigrants are from. Usually in these Churches, the language of the imigrants is used along with a greater or lesser degree of English is used in the Liturgies celebrated within the parish.

In conclusion Greek Orthodox is no more or less Orthodox than Russian Orthodox is Orthodox. All Orthodox Churches, all Bishops, are equal.

 

[ConstantineTG]

People struggle to understand Orthodoxy because mostly they see ethnic parishes. Not too long ago, Roman Catholics in North America were divided along the same ethnic lines. There were Roman Catholic parishes for Germans, Italians, Irish, Polish, etc. Even today we can still see some of these, but not too long ago it was mostly ethnic parishes as well. In my neighborhood and my last RC parish, it was not too long ago a French Roman Catholic parish. I live now in what was historically a French neighborhood, it was an ethnic neighborhood with an ethnic parish. As the demographics of these ethnicities dwindle, the parishes either close down, some of them even sold to non-Catholic congregations. Others transition to become a multi-ethnic parish, or just became a parish of whatever is the new dominant ethnicity in the area (Asians, Mexicans, etc.).

So with this information, Roman Catholics shouldn’t think there is more ethnic divide within Orthodoxy as there is in Roman Catholicism. Those are just the same issues. The only thing is today you don’t see as much in Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy is headed the same way in North America, but we’re just at the beginning of our journey.

 

[Peter_J]

I am in no schism with Orthodox.

I would say that all of us who have never been Orthodox (and hence never left Orthodoxy) are not in schism from Orthodoxy. (Although some people may have a different understanding of the word “schism”.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks 1Timothy215Mommy, for your beautiful post. It helps.

But about the doctrine in faith found in the catechism, if I am understanding people correctly, there are geographical areas within Orthodoxy where they are letting go of the ancients, and accommodating themselves to more the spirit of the contemporary world?

Is this correct? I would think Orthodoxy, in consideration of its history, would want to fortify its beliefs.

This is what happened to the Latin Church in response to the fragmentation of Christianity. It did not spend so much time printing out bibles but uniformity of thought to counteract the nationalism of England and Germany. The priests were then given a better education, and the Holy Father was now the only person allowed to change the liturgy, and likewise was given more advisors to assist him.

I also found out only recently that Germany was under the Holy Roman Empire – Orthodox. And it explains the tensions between Assisi and Perugia…and the reason St. Clare, formerly an Orthodox of German descent with blond hair, had a struggle breaking aw away to join S. Francis.

I think if we focus too much on nationalism, we create unnecessary divisions within Christianity.

Likewise, thanks Constantine.

But what I am seeing are answers that I would give explaining Roman Catholicism!!! Yes, I have also reflected on the tremendous suffering of the Orthodox, and likewise, I cannot understand either why the Lord would allow Constantinople to suffer such a fate. You can reflect on this comment.

Why would the Lord allow Constantinople to fall to none other, Islam??? I was in a different medical plan through my husband’s pension. It was in a predominantly Jewish area of town and my dr and nurse were Jewish. It serves alot of seculars in the area. I went around to the other side of the building and saw an art work on the wall of the Hagia Sophia, this after 9/11, and it really afflicted me seeing the four pillars of Islam staked in the corners of the cathedral.

I think many Roman Catholics want to see the sense of the sacred return more to the liturgy, and still appeal to people who want the vernacular. We also want to see more disciplines of fasting and abstinence return.

I am friends with an Serbian Orthodox lady at work. We had a discussion some time ago and I returned there to work. She criticized the Roman Church for all these changes. I heard the very same thing from Roman Catholics who were so upset with the abuses following Vatican II. I think the ideas were some what diabolic in origin.

Martha Hobbs is a convert to Catholicism, a former communist who said there were about 1200 communists who infiltrated the American and Canadian seminaries to Protestantize our faith and make it an easy, self-willed religion.

Emeritus Pope Benedict’s concern stepping down was that the liturgy needed to arrive at the place the Lord wanted. He did have talks with Pope Francis. I pray this do come to light.

He also predicted the true faith in the Latin Rite would become smaller, but more authentic and faithful.

So maybe with the proper reform of the liturgy, Cardinal Wuerl also said before the papal elections, it was the first concern, that it will help restore the sacred unity.

I do think the Orthodox relate in some ways to Christ than we do, handle mystery alot better. But there are movements in the Latin Church that likewise affirm the personality of Orthodoxy.

But when I read the explanations here, they are explanations I would give. About an Orthodox excommunicating someone for marrying a Catholic, that isn’t right to me.

My former parish has only icons. We have some of the largest icons in the country. Very beautiful in this contemporary church, bringing all the elements together.

 

[josie_L]

Why should we make it fit? Do we just jam theological opinions into our faith just for what?

It never took root in the East. When St. Athanasius wrote “On the incarnation”, he wrote man’s fall as corruption inherent in man’s nature which took hold of us after Adam’s sin. We went from there, not from St. Augustine’s teaching.

Our teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Original Sin are not based solely on St. Augustine, hence, my quotes from other Church fathers. And how is St. Athanasius’s understanding of the fall different from Catholic teaching?

p.s. You’re saying it never took root in the East is ironic as I have been quoting Eastern fathers whose views do not contradict our understanding. And there are a lot of other Eastern fathers that could validate our views that have not been quoted.

 

[josie_L]

I also found out only recently that Germany was under the Holy Roman Empire – Orthodox. And it explains the tensions between Assisi and Perugia…and the reason St. Clare, formerly an Orthodox of German descent with blond hair, had a struggle breaking aw away to join S. Francis.

You are confusing the Roman/Byzantine empire with the Holy Roman Empire which begun I believe in the 8th century under Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman emperor. He, and all other emperors after him were Catholics (some not so Catholic). Emperors I believe originated from Germany.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Our teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Original Sin are not based solely on St. Augustine, hence, my quotes from other Church fathers. And how is St. Athanasius’s understanding of the fall different from Catholic teaching?

For one thing, he teaches that corruption is natural in humanity, that what preserved us from corruption before is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when God created us, and our salvation depends on us getting back to that state. The RC teaching believes that man by nature is immortal (at least the soul is) and that we fell because our purity got stained.

Also, the Immaculate Conception did not come from the Fathers. The biggie really is that none of them believed that the Theotokos was preserved from anything Adam and Eve passed on to us.

p.s. You’re saying it never took root in the East is ironic as I have been quoting Eastern fathers whose views do not contradict our understanding. And there are a lot of other Eastern fathers that could validate our views that have not been quoted.

Any proof-texting can be interpreted one way or another.

 

[josie_L]

Why should we make it fit? Do we just jam theological opinions into our faith just for what?

It never took root in the East. When St. Athanasius wrote “On the incarnation”, he wrote man’s fall as corruption inherent in man’s nature which took hold of us after Adam’s sin. We went from there, not from St. Augustine’s teaching.

I just found this on the net, it is by an Orthodox blogger:

The essential point that Augustine and other Fathers insisted on was that in some sense we inherit sin from Adam, even if we are not guilty precisely of his sin since (of course) we were not in existence at that time. And here Metropolitan Ephraim appears to agree. “We inherit the seed of sin”, he writes. Later he appears to qualify this by saying that inheriting sin means having a weakness for sin or being born into a sinful environment. But is not the seed of sin in itself sinful, even if less sinful than the full-grown fruit? And is not a weakness or proclivity for sin already the beginning of sin itself? But then what is this if not the traditional doctrine of original sin, even if the doctrine is expressed in a non-Augustinian terminology?

 **In order to avoid confusion, it is essential to distinguish between two meanings of the word “sin”.We have to distinguish between personal sin and the law of sin, between sin as the act of a human person, and sin as the state or condition or law of human nature. **This distinction is in fact made by St. Paul in Romans, as Archbishop Theophan of Poltava points out: “The holy apostle clearly distinguishes in his teaching on original sin between two points: paraptoma or transgression, and amartia or sin. By the first he understood the personal transgression by our forefathers of the will of God that they should not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by the second – the law of sinful disorder that entered human nature as the consequence of this transgression. **“I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at work with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members” **(Romans 7.22-23).] When he is talking about the inheritance of the original sin, he has in mind not paraptoma or transgression, for which only they are responsible, but amartia, that is, the law of sinful disorder which afflicted human nature as a consequence of the fall into sin of our forefathers.[6]

 The deniers of the doctrine of original sin either claim that our sinful nature is not the direct result of Adam’s sin (as Metropolitan Anthony puts it: “Adam was not so much the cause of our sinfulness as the first sinner in time”, and God gave us a sinful nature in anticipation that we would sin as Adam did) or that there is a direct causal link from Adam, but that what we inherit from him is not sin, but disease or death (Romanides and his followers).  However, it is clear from the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans that it is precisely sin that we inherit – but sin in the sense of a sinful disorder of human nature (amartia) rather than guilt for a particular transgression (paraptoma).  **This distinction between two meanings of “sin” is confirmed bySt. Maximus the Confessor, who writes: “There then arose sin, the first and worthy of reproach, that is, the falling away of the will from good to evil. Through the first there arose the second – the change in nature from incorruption to corruption, which cannot elicit reproach. For two sins arise in [our] forefather as a consequence of the transgression of the Divine commandment: one worthy of reproach, and the second having as its cause the first and unable to elicit reproach.”**[7]

 In order to establish the vital point that nothing less than sin - and not only disease or death, as the Romanideans affirm - is transmitted to us from Adam, let us look exclusively at the writings of some of the Eastern Fathers who can by no stretch of the imagination be called Augustinians:-

(i) St. Athanasius the Great: “When Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men.”[8]
(ii) St. Ephraim the Syrian: “Adam sowed sinful impurity into pure bodies and the yeast of evil was laid into the whole of our mass.”[9]
(iii) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning… through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term.”[10]
(iv) St. Anastasius of Sinai: “In Adam we became co-inheritors of the curse, not as if we disobeyed that divine commandment with him but because he became mortal and transmitted sin through his seed. We became mortals from a mortal…”

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/278/metropolitan-ephraim-original-sin/

 

[josie_L]

For one thing, he teaches that corruption is natural in humanity, that what preserved us from corruption before is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when God created us, and our salvation depends on us getting back to that state. The RC teaching believes that man by nature is immortal (at least the soul is) and that we fell because our purity got stained.

How is corruption natural to humanity if as you say originally we were preserved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (a state of original holiness?) And don’t the Orthodox believe that one of the consequences of Adam’s sin is death, thereby insinuating that man was meant to live eternally prior to the fall?

Also, the Immaculate Conception did not come from the Fathers. The biggie really is that none of them believed that the Theotokos was preserved from anything Adam and Eve passed on to us.

They may have not used the term “Immaculate Conception” but the idea that the Virgin Mary was immaculate, and that this process began while in the womb or at conception is very much implied by the fathers of the Church (and not just a select few). Do you know that even David, a man after God’s own heart said in Psalm 51:

“INDEED, I WAS BORN GUILTY, A SINNER WHEN MY MOTHER CONCEIVED ME”

Any proof-texting can be interpreted one way or another.

When you have a whole slew of Church fathers saying similar things about our Mother, then I have a harder time believing it’s just a misinterpretation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How is corruption natural to humanity if as you say originally we were preserved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (a state of original holiness?) And don’t the Orthodox believe that one of the consequences of Adam’s sin is death, thereby insinuating that man was meant to live eternally prior to the fall?

The Holy Spirit is not inherent in us. Since we are not divine, we are not in the communion of God as the Holy Trinity is. We are created beings, thus we have a beginning, and apart from God, we will have an end.

The consequence of Adam’s sin is corruption (which is sin and death). But that doesn’t mean we only get corruption if we inherit a stain of sin from Adam. The “what” isn’t the issue between East and West, it is the “how”.

They may have not used the term “Immaculate Conception” but the idea that the Virgin Mary was immaculate, and that this process began while in the womb or at conception is very much implied by the fathers of the Church (and not just a select few). Do you know that even David, a man after God’s own heart said in Psalm 51:

“INDEED, I WAS BORN GUILTY, A SINNER WHEN MY MOTHER CONCEIVED ME”

When you have a whole slew of Church fathers saying similar things about our Mother, then I have a harder time believing it’s just a misinterpretation.

Again, the biggest issue with the IC from the Orthodox perspective is that the IC means Mary never had OS, and OS means she never is of the same human nature as we are, which means Christ did not take up our flesh. The issue isn’t whether Mary was pure and spotless from conception or not, the issue is Mary’s inheritance of the human race from Adam, which Christ came to redeem.

 

[LionHeart777]

…

Again, the biggest issue with the IC from the Orthodox perspective is that the IC means **Mary never had OS, and OS means she never is of the same human nature as we are, which means Christ did not take up our flesh. ** The issue isn’t whether Mary was pure and spotless from conception or not, the issue is Mary’s inheritance of the human race from Adam, which Christ came to redeem.

(Emphasis mine)

ConstantineTG,

This does not follow. Mary “was conceived without original sin or its stain”* but it doesn’t follow that this means that Christ did not take up our flesh because of this. She is the “New Eve”, she is a human being with a human nature. Eve was a human being with a human nature. Jesus was truly man and truly God, 2 natures, as we both believe. How are you defining “nature” and how do you get from the IC that the Virgin Mary doesn’t have the same nature as us?

The way I understand the IC (and someone correct me if I’m wrong), is that by preserving Mary from original sin and it’s stain she was back to the choice and freedom that Eve had in the garden (free from concupiscence.)

To quote St. Irenaeus:

“’…the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith’ (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).” **

• catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

** catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

 

[jimmy]

(Emphasis mine)

ConstantineTG,

This does not follow. Mary “was conceived without original sin or its stain”* but it doesn’t follow that this means that Christ did not take up our flesh because of this. She is the “New Eve”, she is a human being with a human nature. Eve was a human being with a human nature. Jesus was truly man and truly God, 2 natures, as we both believe. How are you defining “nature” and how do you get from the IC that the Virgin Mary doesn’t have the same nature as us?

The way I understand the IC (and someone correct me if I’m wrong), is that by preserving Mary from original sin and it’s stain she was back to the choice and freedom that Eve had in the garden (free from concupiscence.)

To quote St. Irenaeus:

“’…the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith’ (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).” **

• catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

** catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

The fathers saw it as a necessity, that what was handed on, was taken up. If Adam and Eve handed on a corrupted nature, it was necessary that Christ assume this very same corrupted nature. It wasn’t some idealistic human nature that was created seperately, or descended from heaven. That would be reminiscent of Eutychianism. That would mean he wasn’t of the same species as us, and he didn’t heal us. It was in the assumption of our corrupted nature that he healed our corrupted nature.

“the Word of God made flesh had entered into communion with us…For he who was to destroy sin and redeem man from guilt had to enter into the very condition of man, who had been dragged into slavery and was held by death, in order that death might be slain by man, and man should go forth from the bondage of death. [Irenaeus, quoted by Thomas Weinandy, *In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh, p27.]”
“Him who did not know sin, he made sin on our behalf.” It says that God the Father made his Son, Christ, sin; because having been made flesh he was not altered by became incarnate and so was made sin…On account of this his entire flesh is under sin, therefore since it has been made flesh, it has also been made sin. And since he has been offered for sin, not undeservedly is he said to have been made sin; since also a victim which was offered for sins under the law was named sin [Ambrosiaster,quoted in T. Weinandy, ibid,p.30].

 

[neokarny]

Mary “was conceived without original sin or its stain”* but it doesn’t follow that this means that Christ did not take up our flesh because of this. She is the “New Eve”, she is a human being with a human nature. Eve was a human being with a human nature. Jesus was truly man and truly God, 2 natures, as we both believe. How are you defining “nature” and how do you get from the IC that the Virgin Mary doesn’t have the same nature as us?

I’m pretty much just affirming Jimmy’s comments.

If Mary were withheld from corruption, then the flesh that Christ takes from her would likewise be exempt from said corruption. If Christ’s flesh is exempt from this corruption, then human nature’s corruption has not been assumed by Christ. If it has not been assumed by Christ, then it has not been healed and glorified in Him.

That is unless one says that corruption is not hereditary, but that would be problematic with a seeming assumption of the I.C. (namely, the conception-hereditary link).

 

[josie_L]

The Holy Spirit is not inherent in us. Since we are not divine, we are not in the communion of God as the Holy Trinity is. We are created beings, thus we have a beginning, and apart from God, we will have an end.

The Holy Spirit was inherent in us (by us, I mean Adam and Eve), you said it yourself in the previous post, furthermore, if we did not have the Holy Spirit or rather were not born in a state of holiness then how do you signify the fall, i.e., fall from what? You realize that Adam and Eve despite being born in a state of grace, still had free will, i.e., they could still choose to disobey (think of the angels). And being in a state of grace made them no less human, i.e., Mary who is the new Eve did share our human nature but one that was SAVED from being corrupted by sin inherited from our first parents.

The consequence of Adam’s sin is corruption (which is sin and death). But that doesn’t mean we only get corruption if we inherit a stain of sin from Adam. The “what” isn’t the issue between East and West, it is the “how”.

But the reality is that we did inherit a corrupt nature from Adam (where else did we get it?), and why else would we need to be reborn through baptism, i.e., what is the significance of baptizing infants who by all accounts are incapable of sinning? Moreover, you are disregarding an ample amount of fathers who suggest that Adam’s sin is inherited, but you refuse to even take this into consideration because you claim it is not part of your Orthodox faith. I’m guessing you didn’t bother to read the quote from the Orthodox blogger I posted.

Again, the biggest issue with the IC from the Orthodox perspective is that the IC means Mary never had OS, and OS means she never is of the same human nature as we are, which means Christ did not take up our flesh. The issue isn’t whether Mary was pure and spotless from conception or not, the issue is Mary’s inheritance of the human race from Adam, which Christ came to redeem.

If your line of argument had any truth to it, then how do you explain Adam and Eve, i.e., did they not share our human nature despite their being created in a state of holiness? Were they a different breed of humans?

p.s. Being saved from original sin makes Mary no less of in need of redemption and no less human.

 

[LionHeart777]

OK, I see what you are saying I think and if I have erred regarding Catholic teaching I retract it and submit my views to that of the Catholic Church.

But does what you guys are saying contradict the IC?

Edit: What I know is that “…Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain…”

(Source: forums.catholic-questions.org/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=10959281 , bold mine.)

Would one of you two (jimmy or neokarny) mind clarifying what you mean by “corrupted nature” as you are using it? What I’m saying is the above quote in bold.

 

[josie_L]

The fathers saw it as a necessity, that what was handed on, was taken up. If Adam and Eve handed on a corrupted nature, it was necessary that Christ assume this very same corrupted nature. It wasn’t some idealistic human nature that was created seperately, or descended from heaven. That would be reminiscent of Eutychianism. That would mean he wasn’t of the same species as us, and he didn’t heal us. It was in the assumption of our corrupted nature that he healed our corrupted nature.

"the Word of God made flesh had entered into communion with us…For he who was to destroy sin and redeem man from guilt had to enter into the very condition of man, who had been dragged into slavery and was held by death, in order that death might be slain by man, and man should go forth from the bondage of death. [Irenaeus, quoted by Thomas Weinandy, *In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh,

p27.]"
“Him who did not know sin, he made sin on our behalf.” It says that God the Father made his Son, Christ, sin; because having been made flesh he was not altered by became incarnate and so was made sin…On account of this his entire flesh is under sin, therefore since it has been made flesh, it has also been made sin. And since he has been offered for sin, not undeservedly is he said to have been made sin; since also a victim which was offered for sins under the law was named sin [Ambrosiaster,quoted in T. Weinandy, ibid,p.30].

Are you implying that God created Adam and Eve with a corrupted nature? And did this make them any less human to be created in a state of grace? Jesus could still save us by taking on a nature similar to that of Adam and Eve before the fall (who has we know were still capable of disobedience), and still suffer or be subjected to the effects of the fall once born into our world. He is the Son of Man but He is also the spotless lamb.

 

[LionHeart777]

Are you implying that God created Adam and Eve with a corrupted nature? And did this make them any less human to be created in a state of grace? Jesus could still save us by taking on a nature similar to that of Adam and Eve before the fall (who has we know were still capable of disobedience), and still suffer or be subjected to the effects of the fall once born into our world. He is the Son of Man but He is also the spotless lamb.

I’m trying to see what they mean by “corrupted nature” too. I don’t think they mean that God created Adam & Eve with a corrupted nature. They are correct in saying, if I’m not mistaken, that the human nature that Christ took on was not exactly the same as Adam and Eve’s before the fall.

I don’t know all the nuances and/or facts of the Hypostatic Union (I am reading this: Drum, Walter. “The Incarnation.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 8 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm.).

I know that:

“The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union.”

(Ibid.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Holy Spirit was inherent in us (by us, I mean Adam and Eve), you said it yourself in the previous post, furthermore, if we did not have the Holy Spirit or rather were not born in a state of holiness then how do you signify the fall, i.e., fall from what? You realize that Adam and Eve despite being born in a state of grace, still had free will, i.e., they could still choose to disobey (think of the angels). And being in a state of grace made them no less human, i.e., Mary who is the new Eve did share our human nature but one that was SAVED from being corrupted by sin inherited from our first parents.

No He is not. We are not divine by nature. Unlike God who is divine and thus the communion of the Trinity cannot be broken, we are not divine and thus having God within us isn’t a part of our nature. We have the ability to be in communion with God, but as grace, not as part of our very nature.

But the reality is that we did inherit a corrupt nature from Adam (where else did we get it?), and why else would we need to be reborn through baptism, i.e., what is the significance of baptizing infants who by all accounts are incapable of sinning? Moreover, you are disregarding an ample amount of fathers who suggest that Adam’s sin is inherited, but you refuse to even take this into consideration because you claim it is not part of your Orthodox faith. I’m guessing you didn’t bother to read the quote from the Orthodox blogger I posted.

I never said we don’t inherit a corrupt nature from Adam, I just said that whatever we inherit from Adam isn’t a stain or guilt of his sin.

If your line of argument had any truth to it, then how do you explain Adam and Eve, i.e., did they not share our human nature despite their being created in a state of holiness? Were they a different breed of humans?

What we are came from them. Since the fell, we are all fallen. If Mary is born without Original Sin, then she is not fallen while the rest of us are. That is the issue. If Adam and Eve did not fall, then there is no issue that none of us are fallen. You can’t compare us to the pre-fall Adam and Eve, we are children of the post-Fall Adam and Eve.

p.s. Being saved from original sin makes Mary no less of in need of redemption and no less human.

But she would still be of a different nature than us. That is crucial if you understand the role of the Incarnation to our Salvation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m trying to see what they mean by “corrupted nature” too. I don’t think they mean that God created Adam & Eve with a corrupted nature. They are correct in saying, if I’m not mistaken, that the human nature that Christ took on was not exactly the same as Adam and Eve’s before the fall.

I don’t know all the nuances and/or facts of the Hypostatic Union (I am reading this: Drum, Walter. “The Incarnation.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 8 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm.).

I know that:

“The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union.”

(Ibid.)

Christ, being the source of all holiness, sanctifies everything upon contact. That is why by merely touching him people are instantly healed. When he took on our human nature, He sanctified it. That is the redeeming quality of the Incarnation. But it is important first that the human nature He was about to take on is the same fallen humanity that we have. His own human nature wasn’t fallen not because He inherited something already perfected apart form Himself, rather it was His taking of that human nature that perfected it.