Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[jimmy]

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:

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)?

First, OS isn’t an actual sin. That is explicitly denied by all Catholic sources. I am guessing you meant real.

Why is it necessary that Jesus’ human nature be created with sanctifying grace, when there was no time when it wasn’t assumed by the divine person? How can you speak of sanctifying grace deifying the human nature of Jesus? Doesn’t that make the incarnation superfluous? Doesn’t the Incarnation accomplish the deification and purification of the human nature of Jesus’ human nature? And since the human nature of of Jesus wasn’t created first, and then assumed later by the Son, there is no reason to assume a stain that is healed by divine grace and deification. Rather, Mary conceived the Second person of the Trinity.

 

[KathleenGee]

John Duns Scotus pointed out the problem understanding Mary’s Immaculate Conception was the issue of time, when it was not.

Mary is the archenemy of Satan. There was not a single instant where she was vulnerable to sin by the Evil One.

Rather, it is the issue of nature. Mary was in need of redemption like all of us. Our Lord could not be in the womb of that contaminated by sin. Just as the Lord was placed in the Ark of the Covenant to the Mercy Seat in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, likewise the coming Savior and Redeemer could not be placed in a womb contaminated by sin.

Mary was given free will at her conception. And yet her redemption was more perfect. She was chosen by God to be the Mother of His Son, and she being full of grace, fully assented to God’s will at her conception, and she was saved and redeemed at instant of her conception, more perfectly redeemed in anticipation of the Lord’s merits of His passion, death, and resurrection.

We must look at nature and not so much linear time.

The Lord works in eternal time.

 

[jimmy]

John Duns Scotus pointed out the problem understanding Mary’s Immaculate Conception was the issue of time, when it was not.

Mary is the archenemy of Satan. There was not a single instant where she was vulnerable to sin by the Evil One.

Rather, it is the issue of nature. Mary was in need of redemption like all of us. Our Lord could not be in the womb of that contaminated by sin. Just as the Lord was placed in the Ark of the Covenant to the Mercy Seat in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, likewise the coming Savior and Redeemer could not be placed in a womb contaminated by sin.

Mary was given free will at her conception. And yet her redemption was more perfect. She was chosen by God to be the Mother of His Son, and she being full of grace, fully assented to God’s will at her conception, and she was saved and redeemed at instant of her conception, more perfectly redeemed in anticipation of the Lord’s merits of His passion, death, and resurrection.

We must look at nature and not so much linear time.

The Lord works in eternal time.

To say that Jesus couldn’t be in the womb of that ‘contaminated by sin’ is to deny the power of Grace. If That is the case, how does the Spirit purify us of our sins? He can’t inhabit a sinful nature, so how can he make us pure? This idea makes salvation impossible. We are automatically damned because we are contaminated, and therefore uninhabitable for God. It is God who heals, but he is incapable of healing us.

 

[Mickey]

There was not a single instant where she was vulnerable to sin by the Evil One.

Are you saying that she was not capable of sinning?..Immune to temptation?

 

[josie_L]

First, OS isn’t an actual sin. That is explicitly denied by all Catholic sources. I am guessing you meant real.

Yes, by “actual” I meant “real” or as the catechism puts it:

And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

Why is it necessary that Jesus’ human nature be created with sanctifying grace, when there was no time when it wasn’t assumed by the divine person? How can you speak of sanctifying grace deifying the human nature of Jesus? Doesn’t that make the incarnation superfluous? Doesn’t the Incarnation accomplish the deification and purification of the human nature of Jesus’ human nature? And since the human nature of of Jesus wasn’t created first, and then assumed later by the Son, there is no reason to assume a stain that is healed by divine grace and deification. Rather, Mary conceived the Second person of the Trinity.

Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity via the Holy Spirit, obviously this unique manner of conception had something to do with the sanctifying grace that you refer to:

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)

The Catholic view is that we contract original sin through sex at the moment of conception

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 SPOTLESS lamb, Jesus, could not contract this “iniquity we are conceived” in because it would defile him, and he would no longer be SPOTLESS.

But there is also Mary to consider, and knowing that she was full of grace even before she was carrying Jesus in her womb, and knowing that the church fathers referred to her as “immaculate” or without sin, and knowing that original/ancestral sin is passed on by generation Mary had to have been spared such a stain. To believe that she was able to remain pure without benefit of some additional grace (something which did set her apart) smacks of pelagianism.

This canon from the council of Orange (529) pretty much says it all:

Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

I do not believe that omitting original/ancestral sin would make the incarnation superfluous, it was however necessary in light of what we know via the fathers and scripture to ensure that he not be tainted by sin of any kind (contracted and/or committed).

 

[neokarny]

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)?

How else would Christ heal and deify a nature stained by sin without actually assuming it? That which is not assumed is not healed and all that jazz.

 

[neokarny]

The Catholic view is that we contract original sin through sex at the moment of conception

I think the Eastern views may be contrary to this. Original sin is relative to our nature and this fallen world, but I don’t believe it’s understood as propagated through sexual reproduction.

Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity via the Holy Spirit, obviously this unique manner of conception had something to do with the sanctifying grace that you refer to:

What? God the Word taking flesh would heal and transform (fill with grace, deify, unite to the divinity, etc.) human nature, privation of grace and all. I don’t see the necessity of mentioning the Holy Spirit in this Christological context, unless you say the Holy Spirit changed the human nature that Christ received from Mary.

 

[jimmy]

Mary conceived the second person of the Trinity via the Holy Spirit, obviously this unique manner of conception had something to do with the sanctifying grace that you refer to:

I am not sure what you mean. I don’t see the connection betwee the Incarnation and sanctifying grace.

The Catholic view is that we contract original sin through sex at the moment of conception

I don’t think that is the Catholic or Orthodox teaching. It was once popular, and maybe some still use it, but I don’t think it is an official position, or even a common one any more.

The SPOTLESS lamb, Jesus, could not contract this “iniquity we are conceived” in because it would defile him, and he would no longer be SPOTLESS.

This is where I disagree, and it is the point I have been trying to make in my last few posts. The Incarnation is the source of Grace for us. God became man so that man might become god. There is a direct relationship between both sides of this statement. In uniting the human nature to himself, it is purified. Do you think there could be any lack of Grace in human nature that is united to God? What Grace did Mary recieve at her conception that Jesus didn’t have from the Incarnation?

The reason why I point out that the Incarnation happened at the moment of conception, rather than some later time, is because Rome argues that Mary recieved Grace at conception, rather than at some later time. Otherwise, Mary would have become defiled by OS. The Incarnation leaves no room for the reception of OS, even from a western view of OS. Jesus’ nature could lack Grace, because it was completely united to God.

But there is also Mary to consider, and knowing that she was full of grace even before she was carrying Jesus in her womb, and knowing that the church fathers referred to her as “immaculate” or without sin, and knowing that original/ancestral sin is passed on by generation Mary had to have been spared such a stain. To believe that she was able to remain pure without benefit of some additional grace (something which did set her apart) smacks of pelagianism.

I don’t see how you can assert that she was full of Grace before the Incarnation. There is an ancient Syriac tradition that speaks of that moment when the angel speaks those words is the moment of the Incarnation.

The Orthodox are often accused of semipelagianism.

I have a problem with this kind of argument because it seems that everything is forced to fit so that it sounds good. Mary was full of grace, therefore she never sinned, therefore she must have recieved a particular grace at conception to protect her from sinning. If you disagree with the conclusion you are a pelagian. It’s all wrapped up nicely.

I do not believe that omitting original/ancestral sin would make the incarnation superfluous, it was however necessary in light of what we know via the fathers and scripture to ensure that he not be tainted by sin of any kind (contracted and/or committed).

As I have been pointing out, it is superfluous. The Son is the source of Grace, so it is superfluous to argue that he needed to be preserved by sanctifying Grace, that comes apart from the incarnation. It is redundant as well because the idea is that he is the source of this Grace in a roundabout way. The incarnation is the source of the Grace given to Mary, and consequently that given to Christ to keep his nature pure. It is a perfect loop.

I don’t think though that the CC asserts that Jesus would have had a corrupt nature If the IC didn’t occur. Even if Mary would have sinned, it wouldn’t imply that Jesus’ nature would be stained by OS, or lack Grace. So I think this is a superfluous argument we are having.

 

[jimmy]

How else would Christ heal and deify a nature stained by sin without actually assuming it? That which is not assumed is not healed and all that jazz.

Josie, this is similar to the point I was trying to make above. It is by assuming what is corrupt and sinful that it is made pure. By saying God couldn’t assume a sinful nature, you put a barrier between us and God, because It is God living in us that purifies us. Grace is the divine presence. It is that which heals us. So to say God can’t reside in a sinful nature is to deny us healing, unless of course you are to assert pelagianism as truth, which I know you don’t.

 

[josie_L]

How else would Christ heal and deify a nature stained by sin without actually assuming it? That which is not assumed is not healed and all that jazz.

He did heal and deify our nature by way of the cross, which enabled us to be reborn again in Christ through baptism. But I think we mean two different things when we speak of original sin, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean by it (please note all the references I have placed throughout my posts). But here we go again, original sin is contracted at conception (the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and results in a zygote), being that God was to assume our nature, it would hardly be fitting that the SPOTLESS lamb would contract this sin (I am not referring here to corruptibility or concupiscence) as original sin is a real sin. Church fathers attest to this sin which is handed down to us by Adam via conception.

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)*

The HIM that Aphraates is speaking of is Jesus, the wound which he did not receive is original sin.

AMBROSIASTER or Pseudo-Ambrose (c. 366 - 384 AD)

“In whom” – that is, IN ADAM – “all have sinned” [Rom 5:12]. And he said “in whom,” using the masculine form, when he was speaking of a woman, because the reference was not to a specific individual but to the race. It is clear, therefore, that ALL HAVE SINNED IN ADAM, -en masse- as it were; for when he himself was corrupted by sin, all whom he begot were BORN UNDER SIN

. On his account, then, all are sinners, because WE ARE ALL FROM HIM. He lost God’s favor when he strayed. (Commentaries on 13 Pauline Epistles, In Rom 5:12, see also Jurgens comments vol 2, pg 179, n1-3)

The “born under sin” is a reference to original sin (privation of sanctifying grace), not corruptibility or concupiscence, which according to my Catholic views are different effects of Adam’s fault (I posted this information in an earlier post).

 

[josie_L]

Josie, this is similar to the point I was trying to make above. It is by assuming what is corrupt and sinful that it is made pure. By saying God couldn’t assume a sinful nature, you put a barrier between us and God, because It is God living in us that purifies us. Grace is the divine presence. It is that which heals us. So to say God can’t reside in a sinful nature is to deny us healing, unless of course you are to assert pelagianism as truth, which I know you don’t.

I have never implied that God can’t assume our sinful and/or corrupt nature, because He did, however, what he could not assume as part of our corrupt nature was hereditary sin or rather original sin because He is the spotless lamb, i.e. original sin is a real 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)

The wound he is referring to is the wound of original sin, which Jesus was not affected by
due to the manner in which he was conceived, and Mary’s own immaculate conception. Earlier, I posted this text but I received no commentary (actually I have received no commentary on any of the quotes that I have posted), but here goes again:

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)

What does this mean to you, but that because Christ was conceived differently from the rest of us he was freed from that sin “which, indeed all who are descended from Adam contract in succession”

 

[neokarny]

He did heal and deify our nature by way of the cross

By way of the cross? I’m not sure I understand, as the healing of our nature was tied to his incarnation, death, and resurrection - not just the latter two.

But I think we mean two different things when we speak of original sin, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean by it (please note all the references I have placed throughout my posts). But here we go again, original sin is contracted at conception (the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and results in a zygote), being that God was to assume our nature, it would hardly be fitting that the SPOTLESS lamb would contract this sin (I am not referring here to corruptibility or concupiscence) as original sin is a real sin. Church fathers attest to this sin which is handed down to us by Adam via conception.

I don’t think the Eastern Churches necessarily say that original sin itself is a “real sin” (this term is foreign to me, but I can assume its meaning), and I’m sure it’s not said that human corruption is passed on through sexual reproduction alone. Otherwise, a human baptised into Christ and cleansed of original sin would no longer pass it on, which obviously isn’t the case.

So, in my understanding of our Tradition, if original sin is not passed on to Christ, then neither are corruption (which I believe would include concupiscence, humanity’s corrupted Image, privation of grace), death, etc. I say this because we don’t, AFAIK, separate the ancestral sin from the consequences of corruption and death. We do say that Christ was like us in all ways save sin, but there’s nothing wrong with Christ taking sin-corrupted flesh unto himself to restore it (and most importantly us!) by way of the incarnation.

 

[jimmy]

I have never implied that God can’t assume our sinful and/or corrupt nature, because He did, however, what he could not assume as part of our corrupt nature was hereditary sin or rather original sin because He is the spotless lamb, i.e. original sin is a real sin.

That doesn’t really answer the point. It is the Incarnation that makes Jesus’s nature clean, and spotless. Not a seperate Grace that is independent of the incarnation. How does sanctifying grace make Jesus’s nature any more ‘spotless’ than the Son of God assuming it would? As I have pointed out there is no point at which Jesus’s human nature existed apart from his divine nature and the divine person. So from the point of conception, it is united completely to the divine person. If that doesn’t make him pure and spotless, neither was Mary pure and spotless even with the IC. Again, what does sanctifying Grace recieved trough the IC offer that the Incarnation is incapable of? How is it that Mary is preserved by an extraordinary grace, yet the Son can’t even preserve or heal a nature by assuming it?

Didymus is wrong, and the Apprahat quote is vague. It never clearly mentions OS. I will have to check them both out in their context though. The Didymus quote doesn’t support your thesis though. What it supports is the idea that the sexual act was the source of OS. The purity of Mary is irrelevant. But he is wrong.

 

[jimmy]

By way of the cross? I’m not sure I understand, as the healing of our nature was tied to his incarnation, death, and resurrection - not just the latter two.

I don’t think the Eastern Churches necessarily say that original sin itself is a “real sin” (this term is foreign to me, but I can assume its meaning), and I’m sure it’s not said that human corruption is passed on through sexual reproduction alone. Otherwise, a human baptised into Christ and cleansed of original sin would no longer pass it on, which obviously isn’t the case.

I noticed that too, and I think it is a significant difference in this discussion. We have been arguing about the significance of the incarnation basically, and Josie seems to not realize the full significance of the incarnation. The act of assuming human nature, and uniting it to the divine is purifying and redemptive, regardless of the cross. It all starts with the incarnation, not the passion.

The incarnational approach emphasizes the divine communion as the redemptive aspect. In uniting the particular nature of Jesus to himself, the Son became the source of Grace for all men. The other approach emphasizes the suffering and death of Christ as the redemptive aspect. It is from the merits of the cross, that Mary recieves the grace of the IC.

 

[neokarny]

I noticed that too, and I think it is a significant difference in this discussion. We have been arguing about the significance of the incarnation basically, and Josie seems to not realize the full significance of the incarnation. The act of assuming human nature, and uniting it to the divine is purifying and redemptive, regardless of the cross. It all starts with the incarnation, not the passion.

Very true. The incarnation needs equal emphasis alongside the death and resurrection, as it is just as important as the other two in Christ’s atoning work. The death and resurrection are nonetheless important too, as they finalize the incarnational redemptive work of Christ (truly defeating death by his death and resurrection, and allowing us to become partakers of his atonement through the Church, etc.). But without the proper incarnation of Christ, they would be ineffective on us and human nature would be left unredeemed.

It is from the merits of the cross, that Mary recieves the grace of the IC.

Could you explain further how this differs?

 

[josie_L]

By way of the cross? I’m not sure I understand, as the healing of our nature was tied to his incarnation, death, and resurrection - not just the latter two.

Honestly, neokarny this is getting tiresome (like splitting hairs), my point was that the healing of our corrupt nature was solidified or rather took effect with Jesus’s death and eventual resurrection as we were then able to be reborn/baptized.

I don’t think the Eastern Churches necessarily say that original sin itself is a “real sin” (this term is foreign to me, but I can assume its meaning), and I’m sure it’s not said that human corruption is passed on through sexual reproduction alone. Otherwise, a human baptised into Christ and cleansed of original sin would no longer pass it on, which obviously isn’t the case.

Well, my church does state that it is a real sin, and having said this it is contracted at conception (read the quotes I’ve posted by the fathers). Conception can only come about via sexual reproduction, and since life starts at conception, original sin is contracted at this point in time. You saying that this isn’t the case because baptized humans no longer have original sin to transmit is erroneous because the removal of original sin is tied to baptism and that baptism cannot be transmitted to another human being, i.e., each individual being is in need of redemption and those graces received at baptism are not transmittable.

So, in my understanding of our Tradition, if original sin is not passed on to Christ, then neither are corruption (which I believe would include concupiscence, humanity’s corrupted Image, privation of grace), death, etc. I say this because we don’t, AFAIK, separate the ancestral sin from the consequences of corruption and death. We do say that Christ was like us in all ways save sin, but there’s nothing wrong with Christ taking sin-corrupted flesh unto himself to restore it (and most importantly us!) by way of the incarnation.

And this is where we differ, original sin is one of the effects of Adam’s fault, the others are death, disease and corruption/concupiscence, and since we too say that Christ was like us in all ways save sin, is why I’m saying that original sin as the Catholic Church defines it could not take effect in Christ as it is a real sin.

 

[neokarny]

Well, my church does state that it is a real sin, and having said this it is contracted at conception (read the quotes I’ve posted by the fathers). Conception can only come about via sexual reproduction, and since life starts at conception, original sin is contracted at this point in time.

I disagree that sexual reproduction is the actual cause of propagating original sin through conception, but I don’t disagree that humans inherit original sin at conception (beginning of life, and as such they necessarily have human nature, and so original sin).

You saying that this isn’t the case because baptized humans no longer have original sin to transmit is erroneous because the removal of original sin is tied to baptism and that baptism cannot be transmitted to another human being, i.e., each individual being is in need of redemption and those graces received at baptism are not transmittable.

I don’t see how two baptized humans without original sin can sexually pass on original sin to their offspring. They can’t inherit a condition from their parents that their parents no longer have to pass on. The only responses I can see are: 1) the parents still have it in some way to pass on, or 2) the child gets it from some other means.

And this is where we differ,…] the Catholic Church defines it could not take effect in Christ as it is a real sin.

But wouldn’t EC’s agree with the other Eastern Churches on these matters? Unless they’re not allowed to inherit their traditions.

 

[josie_L]

I noticed that too, and I think it is a significant difference in this discussion. We have been arguing about the significance of the incarnation basically, and Josie seems to not realize the full significance of the incarnation. The act of assuming human nature, and uniting it to the divine is purifying and redemptive, regardless of the cross. It all starts with the incarnation, not the passion.

Yes, Christ elevated humanity to new heights in taking upon our corrupt nature (I get this), but my point in mentioning the cross was not to overstate the case of the incarnation with regard to purification and healing, i.e., in reality it was only after Christ died on the cross and resurrected that our true healing began, i.e., rebirth or regeneration via baptism.

 

[dvdjs]

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

As pointed out to you repeatedly:

1. Ineffabilis Deus talks about exemption from the stain of Original Sin.
2. The “stain” of Original Sin, that sinful aspect of the consequences of the ancestral sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace.

The language is appropriate the theology.

 

[dvdjs]

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?

1 See above.
2. What event has to be applied? At what point in time was it beyond the power of God to bestow grace?