Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

(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

What other human nature would Christ get if not the one from Mary? That is why it is crucial that Mary herself is one of us, not an exception to the human race.

 

[LionHeart777]

Constantine TG,

Perhaps the following will help regarding some language hangups perhaps:

In brief: Let us improve the language and presentation where needed,
without saying the content was erroneous.

This is especially the case with original sin. The older way of
speaking, especially under Augustinian influence, have spoken of a
stain of sin - though a spirit cannot take on any stain - have said
our nature was wounded, our mind darkened, and our will weakened. And
it was said it was transmitted by inheritance.

Pope John Paul II has done remarkably in improving that language. In
a General Audience of Oct 1, 1986: ‘In context, it is evident that
original sin in Adam’s descendants has not the character of personal
guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace. . . . It is a ‘sin
of nature’ only analogically comparable to ‘personal sin.’’ Then in
Audience of Oct 8: ‘. . . according to Church’s teaching, it is a
case of a relative and not an absolute deterioration, not intrinsic
to the human faculties. . . . not of a loss of their essential
capacities even in relation to the knowledge and love of God.’

Source: ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ORIGSIN.TXT

Do you disagree with any of this?

 

[jimmy]

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 didn’t say anything about how Adam and Eve were created so how did you get that idea? The prefall state of man isn’t man. It might have once been man, but man changed. To give Jesus a nature similar to prefall Adam, wouldn’t be man. He wouldn’t be the Son of man (Adam). He would be something else.

The reception of Christ’s nature from Adam is an extremely important part of Christian theology. If Christ’s nature wasn’t recieved from Adam, then he isn’t man, no matter how much he looks like a man. He isn’t a descendant of Adam, therefore he saved no one. As the classic patristic text goes, ‘what was not assumed was not healed.’

How could Jesus be subjected to the fall if his nature was created seperately from fallen man? Is this some kind of aphthartodocetism in which Jesus voluntarily submits to the effects of the fall, even though he has an idealized nature that isn’t subject to the effects of the fall?

I am also curious what you think a superadded grace is going to do that the second person of the Trinity can’t do? I think you are asserting that Jesus’ human nature was created with a superadded Grace that put him in God’s Grace? How does this preserve his human nature, but the uniting of human nature with the divine person doesn’t? The only way this makes any sense to me is if you assert that somehow there was a time when Jesus wasn’t God, and then became God. That way you could assert that it was necessary to give him Sanctifying Grace seperate from the Incarnation.

 

[LionHeart777]

What other human nature would Christ get if not the one from Mary? That is why it is crucial that Mary herself is one of us, not an exception to the human race.

I am perhaps getting above my qualifications here but will just state for now that I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about this, so hopefully that would answer.

I do believe that Mary is “one of us” , although she was given a special Grace in the Immaculate Conception. You seem to be arguing that this special Grace made her not human somehow. We don’t believe this as you know.

 

[jimmy]

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.

Exactly.

 

[jimmy]

I am perhaps getting above my qualifications here but will just state for now that I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about this, so hopefully that would answer.

I do believe that Mary is “one of us” , although she was given a special Grace in the Immaculate Conception. You seem to be arguing that this special Grace made her not human somehow. We don’t believe this as you know.

It probably depends how the IC is interpreted. Fr Weinandy is a Catholic priest, who wrote a book on this subject, but at the same time recognizes the IC dogma.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am perhaps getting above my qualifications here but will just state for now that I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about this, so hopefully that would answer.

I do believe that Mary is “one of us” , although she was given a special Grace in the Immaculate Conception. You seem to be arguing that this special Grace made her not human somehow. We don’t believe this as you know.

If the IC was about imbuing Mary with grace, why does it talk about her being exempted from Original Sin?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

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.

Exactly, Jesus only healed & elevated that which He took onto Himself, our fallen human nature.

 

[LionHeart777]

If the IC was about imbuing Mary with grace, why does it talk about her being exempted from Original Sin?

Let me quote this:

“In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary ‘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.’”

Source: Holweck, Frederick. “Immaculate Conception.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.

I’m not 100% sure what you are getting at, but does this answer?

Or, another answer would be, it’s about whatever the Church says it’s about in short.

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t say anything about how Adam and Eve were created so how did you get that idea? The prefall state of man isn’t man. It might have once been man, but man changed. To give Jesus a nature similar to prefall Adam, wouldn’t be man. He wouldn’t be the Son of man (Adam). He would be something else.

Because you mentioned that Jesus did not have an idealized human nature, but that is how Adam and Eve were initially created, and no one can deny they were human (I think Genesis quite clearly states this). They were man as man was meant to be. As to my mentioning Jesus’s nature similar to pre-fall Adam I meant it in the sense that Jesus did not have the stain of sin that is transmitted to all posterity, i.e., original sin (this is not to say that I deny all effects of a corrupt human nature which he shared with us, just original sin). This original sin that I speak of is an actual privation/sin has it pertains to the loss of sanctifying grace, therefore Jesus could not have been conceived with such a sin/privation, he is the spotless lamb. The Church teaches that original sin is not the same as concupiscence:

Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants

It is inconceivable that he contracted original sin (the hereditary stain) from Mary, it would also be inconceivable to the fathers if you realized that many believed in original sin.

APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE (c. 340 AD)

For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is ABSENT from all those who are BORN OF THE FLESH, until they come to the WATER OF RE-BIRTH; and then they receive the Holy Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. Indeed, in the first birth they are born possessed of an animal spirit, which is created within man, nor afterwards does it ever die, for it is written: “Adam became a living soul” [cf. Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:45]. But in the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit from a particle of the Godhead; nor is He afterwards subject to death…Of all those who have been BORN and who have PUT ON FLESH, there is ONE ONLY who is INNOCENT: namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in fact testifies to such in His own regard [John 16:33; Isa 53:9; Mal 3:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:14; 1 Cor 9:24 are then alluded to or cited]…Moreover, among the SONS OF ADAM THERE IS NONE besides Him who might ENTER THE RACE [are born] WITHOUT BEING WOUNDED or swallowed up….For SIN has ruled from the time ADAM TRANSGRESSED THE COMMAND. By one among the many was it swallowed up; MANY * DID IT WOUND, AND MANY DID IT KILL; but none among the many killed it until our Savior came, who took it on Himself and fixed it to His cross…Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse PASSED ON TO ALL HIS PROGENY. (Treatises 6:14; 7:1; 23:3) *

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 383 AD)

Before we are born WE ARE INFECTED WITH THE CONTAGION, and before we see the light of day we experience the INJURY OF OUR ORIGIN. IN INIQUITY WE ARE CONCEIVED [cf. Psalm 51:5] – he does not say whether the wickedness is of our parents or our own – AND IN SINS each one’s mother gives him life. Nor with this did he state whether his mother gave birth to him in her own sins or whether the sins of which he speaks pertain in some way to being born. But consider and see what is meant. NO CONCEPTION IS WITHOUT INIQUITY, since there are NO PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT FALLEN. And if there is NO INFANT WHO IS EVEN ONE DAY WITHOUT SIN, much less can the CONCEPTIONS of a mother’s womb be WITHOUT SIN. We are conceived, therefore, in the sin of our parents, and it is in their sins that we are born. (Explanation of David the Prophet 1:11:56, Jurgens comments that in the above passage “the emphasis is upon concupiscence”)

The reception of Christ’s nature from Adam is an extremely important part of Christian theology. If Christ’s nature wasn’t recieved from Adam, then he isn’t man, no matter how much he looks like a man. He isn’t a descendant of Adam, therefore he saved no one. As the classic patristic text goes, ‘what was not assumed was not healed.’

I do not deny this. We differ, however, on what we mean by a corrupt nature. I do not believe that he inherited original sin as part of his taking on our corrupt nature.

How could Jesus be subjected to the fall if his nature was created seperately from fallen man? Is this some kind of aphthartodocetism . . . .

Sorry, this is my fault in that I did not clarify myself very well in my original post.

I am also curious what you think a superadded grace is going to do that the second person of the Trinity can’t do? I think you are asserting that Jesus’ human nature was created with a superadded Grace that put him in God’s Grace?

DIDYMUS THE BLIND (c. 313 - 398 AD)

If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. [See Jurgens comment on this passage, vol 2, pg 64] (Against the Manicheans 8)

 

[josie_L]

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.

Yes, this is true, my error was in not understanding what they meant by a corrupt nature, for a Catholic it means something altogether different and inconceivable, i.e, because we believe in original sin.

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.)

Yes, this is why I cannot conceive of my Lord and Saviour has inheriting original sin, and this concept of original sin does indeed exist amongst the fathers.

 

[neokarny]

It is inconceivable that he contracted original sin (the hereditary stain) from Mary, it would also be inconceivable to the fathers if you realized that many believed in original sin.

I do not deny this. We differ, however, on what we mean by a corrupt nature. I do not believe that he inherited original sin as part of his taking on our corrupt nature.

I think it’s safe to say that we believe humans inherit corruptibility and mortality, which are the consequences of original sin. We believe that this corruption then corrupted creation, so even when baptised we are still in a fallen world. We would absolutely say that Christ inherited corruptibility and mortality, and instantly transfigured and healed it through the mystery of his incarnation. So through the process of theosis, we come to taste the fruits of Christ’s atoning work by his incarnation, death, and resurrection. Obviously a part of original sin is the privation of grace, which would necessarily be rectified upon Christ taking flesh.

So really I’m not sure what’s the problem with Christ inheriting original sin, unless you mean something different from what I just described.

Also, if there is anything pertaining to humanity not assumed (inherited) by Christ that keeps us from salvation, then that is not healed through Christ’s work and left unhealed in us. I think it’d be accurate that if Christ didn’t inherit something pertaining to our humanity and our condition, it necessarily ruins the atoning work of the incarnation from our perspective.

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, this is true, my error was in not understanding what they meant by a corrupt nature, for a Catholic it means something altogether different and inconceivable, i.e, because we believe in original sin.

Yes, this is why I cannot conceive of my Lord and Saviour has inheriting original sin, and this concept of original sin does indeed exist amongst the fathers.

An interesting thing I picked up from article, “The Incarnation”*Catholic Encyclopedia’s * is the following:

“The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let me quote this:

“In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary ‘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.’”

Source: Holweck, Frederick. “Immaculate Conception.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.

I’m not 100% sure what you are getting at, but does this answer?

Or, another answer would be, it’s about whatever the Church says it’s about in short.

There are two problems here.

#1 What are the implications of someone being free from Original Sin, which is the result of the Fall, mean?
#2 How does an event that has yet to happen be applied?

 

[LionHeart777]

I think it’s safe to say that we believe humans inherit corruptibility and mortality, which are the consequences of original sin. We believe that this corruption then corrupted creation, so even when baptised we are still in a fallen world. We would absolutely say that Christ inherited corruptibility and mortality, and instantly transfigured and healed it through the mystery of his incarnation. So through the process of theosis, we come to taste the fruits of Christ’s atoning work by his incarnation, death, and resurrection. Obviously a part of original sin is the privation of grace, which would necessarily be rectified upon Christ taking flesh.

So really I’m not sure what’s the problem with Christ inheriting original sin, unless you mean something different from what I just described.

Also, if there is anything pertaining to humanity not assumed (inherited) by Christ that keeps us from salvation, then that is not healed through Christ’s work and left unhealed in us. I think it’d be accurate that if Christ didn’t inherit something pertaining to our humanity and our condition, it necessarily ruins the atoning work of the incarnation from our perspective.

I think we wanted clarification as to what you and others mean by " Christ inherited corruptibility". A good bit of info can be found in entry on "The Incarnation"Catholic Encyclopedia’s, regarding our conversation, towards the bottom: “Effects of the incarnation”.

It should cover a lot of ground and isn’t too long (that section.)

 

[LionHeart777]

There are two problems here.

#1 What are the implications of someone being free from Original Sin, which is the result of the Fall, mean?
#2 How does an event that has yet to happen be applied?

To quote Blessed John Henry Newman, “‘Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.’”

To #1, can you elaborate more here? Maybe explain what are your hangups specifically and in regards to how you are defining original sin.

To #2, God is outside of time and part of the definition of the Immaculate Conception says that it happened “…in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…” What are your thoughts about those who died before Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead? How could his Atonement be applied to them? And yet it was. There is no problem here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To quote Blessed John Henry Newman, “‘Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.’”

To #1, can you elaborate more here? Maybe explain what are your hangups specifically and in regards to how you are defining original sin.

I think I have already explained it one hundred bajillion times.

To #2, God is outside of time, and it was defined, in part, “…in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…” What are your thoughts about those who died before Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead? How could his Atonement be applied to them? And yet it was. There is no problem here.

A. God is beyond time, but we’re not
B. The concept of time travel only came about from HG Well’s science fiction novel. It is not present in Patristic or Judaic thought, so to propose a dogma based on such a pagan fantasy idea is against any understanding of the Christian faith by the Apostles and Church Fathers.

Those who died before Christ were only saved at the time Christ died and “descended unto the dead”. If God was indeed time travelling, then He shouldn’t have sent Adam out of paradise, instead He should just have asked him to stay and receive the merits of what Christ was going to do a few millenia later.

 

[josie_L]

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.

How were Adam and Eve created? In what state were Adam and Eve before the fall?

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.

Again, the church fathers would disagree with you, on the matter of inheriting a stain or the seed of sin from Adam:

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 383 AD)

Before we are born WE ARE INFECTED WITH THE CONTAGION, and before we see the light of day we experience the INJURY OF OUR ORIGIN. IN INIQUITY WE ARE CONCEIVED [cf. Psalm 51:5] – he does not say whether the wickedness is of our parents or our own – AND IN SINS each one’s mother gives him life. Nor with this did he state whether his mother gave birth to him in her own sins or whether the sins of which he speaks pertain in some way to being born. But consider and see what is meant.** NO CONCEPTION IS WITHOUT INIQUITY**, since there are NO PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT FALLEN. And if there is NO INFANT WHO IS EVEN ONE DAY WITHOUT SIN, much less can the CONCEPTIONS of a mother’s womb be WITHOUT SIN. We are conceived, therefore, in the sin of our parents, and it is in their sins that we are born. (Explanation of David the Prophet 1:11:56, Jurgens comments that in the above passage “the emphasis is upon concupiscence”)

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.

She was SAVED from the fall in this respect, i.e., she was not conceived with original sin like the rest of us (she was not immune to the other effects of the fall however) because she would be the Mother of God.

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.

I’m having a hard time with this statement because I do not believe that denying Mary original sin effects the role of the Incarnation. I do have a hard time however understanding how you think Mary remained immaculate throughout her whole life without some kind of additional grace, something which would set her apart from the very beginning (believing anything else would smack of pelagianism). Again, the issue comes down to original sin, because in sparing Mary this stain she was able to lead an immaculate life, in this manner was she redeemed and worthy of being the mother of the God-Man, i.e., the SPOTLESS lamb.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 379 AD)

Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother…For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS, DEATH OF SIN, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Eulogies on the Martyrs 8:7; 13:5)

 

[LionHeart777]

I think I have already explained it one hundred bajillion times.

A. God is beyond time, but we’re not
B. The concept of time travel only came about from HG Well’s science fiction novel. It is not present in Patristic or Judaic thought, so to propose a dogma based on such a pagan fantasy idea is against any understanding of the Christian faith by the Apostles and Church Fathers.

(I edited my last post a bit.)

Well, I really don’t understand where you are coming from. I’m not talking about science fiction or time travel or any such thing.

You wrote:

Those who died before Christ were only saved at the time Christ died and ‘descended unto the dead’. If God was indeed time travelling, then He shouldn’t have sent Adam out of paradise, instead He should just have asked him to stay and receive the merits of what Christ was going to do a few millenia later.

---

I’m not talking about time traveling again, how is this not a caricature of my argument? God is outside of time. He is the One who was acting in the Immaculate Conception and he did it

Perhaps you could interact with:

What are your thoughts about those who died before Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead? How could his Atonement be applied to them? And yet it was. There is no problem here.

Don’t you see the similarity here?

Edit: I see your response now (maybe you edited it?)

You wrote:

Those who died before Christ were only saved at the time Christ died and ‘descended unto the dead’. If God was indeed time travelling, then He shouldn’t have sent Adam out of paradise, instead He should just have asked him to stay and receive the merits of what Christ was going to do a few millenia later.

I’m not talking about time traveling again, how is this not a caricature (if it can even be called that) of my argument? God is outside of time. He is the One who was acting in the Immaculate Conception and He did it “… in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…” You seem to want to put God in a box. Would such a thing be impossible for Him?

 

[josie_L]

So really I’m not sure what’s the problem with Christ inheriting original sin, unless you mean something different from what I just described

Yes, I do, original sin is a sin we contract at conception, this understanding is supported by many church fathers (some of which I have already quoted). The Catholic Church views Adam’s fault in this manner:

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).** In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects.** But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) **The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. **But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Also, if there is anything pertaining to humanity not assumed (inherited) by Christ that keeps us from salvation, then that is not healed through Christ’s work and left unhealed in us. I think it’d be accurate that if Christ didn’t inherit something pertaining to our humanity and our condition, it necessarily ruins the atoning work of the incarnation from our perspective.

Could Christ who is the spotless lamb, put on a nature that was stained by sin (I am not referring to concupiscence or corruptibility, but actual sin, i.e., original sin)?