Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin

[Zekariya]

What’s the difference between inheriting spiritual death and being born lacking grace? If the East were to understand the Immaculate Conception as teaching that Mary was conceived in a state of spiritual life, how would that be different from Latins teaching she was conceived in a state of grace?

The West teaches that supernatural grace was lost in the fall and everyone with Original Sin lacks it. We do not believe that losing God’s grace is part of the consequences of the Fall. Therefore, we have no “need” to teach the Immaculate Conception which is foreign to the theological language of the East. The Mother of God was born with all of the consequences of the Fall and was full of God’s grace at the same time. She chose out of her free will to never sin.

Since the Western teaches that we cannot have God’s grace and original sin, Mary is taught to have been immaculately conceived so that she could have God’s grace.

Here is the Byzantine view presented by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:
However [contrary to the Roman Catholic view], God has never deprived mankind of His mercy, help, grace, and especially His chosen people; and from this people there came forth great righteous men such as Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the later prophets. The Apostle Paul, in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, lists a whole choir of Old Testament righteous ones, saying that they are those “of whom the world was not worthy” (Heb. 11:38). All of them were perfected not without a gift from above, not without the grace of God. The book of Acts cites the words of the first martyr, Stephen, where he says of David that he “found favor (grace) before God, and desired to find a tab-tabernacle of the God of Jacob” (Acts 7:46); that is, to build a Temple for Him. The greatest of the prophets, St. John the Forerunner, was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). But the Old Testament righteous ones could not escape the general lot of fallen mankind after death, remaining in the darkness of hell, until the founding of the Heavenly Church; that is, until the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ destroyed the gates of hell and opened the way into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Read more here: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P1J.HTM

 

[Zekariya]

What’s the difference between inheriting spiritual death and being born lacking grace? If the East were to understand the Immaculate Conception as teaching that Mary was conceived in a state of spiritual life, how would that be different from Latins teaching she was conceived in a state of grace?

The West teaches that supernatural grace was lost in the fall and everyone with Original Sin lacks it. We do not believe that losing God’s grace is part of the consequences of the Fall. Therefore, we have no “need” to teach the Immaculate Conception which is foreign to the theological language of the East. The Mother of God was born with all of the consequences of the Fall and was full of God’s grace at the same time. She chose out of her free will to never sin.

Since the Western teaches that we cannot have God’s grace and original sin, Mary is taught to have been immaculately conceived so that she could have God’s grace.

Here is the Byzantine view presented by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:
According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arosea theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?” One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God One must note that the acknowledgement of this dogma was preceded in the West by a long period of theological dispute, which lasted from the 12th century, when this teaching appeared, until the 17th century, when it was spread by Jesuits in the Roman Catholic world.

…]

On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me… With Thy governing Spirit establish me;” or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my protector.”

On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the “Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Par. 6). The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God theWord to earth The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.

Read more: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P1N.HTM

 

[theistgal]

I am trying to follow along and read the links posted here. I have also read about this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and want to make sure I understand correctly. So when we were born in original sin, we did not share in Adam’s personal fault, but an inclination to sin?

Does this mean that Mary as the Immaculate Conception was born without an inclination to sin? Could she be tempted by the devil without original sin like Jesus was?

Sure, think about it. Mary is the “new Eve”. That means that she was born with a clean slate, just like Eve. She could have sinned and didn’t. The Eastern Christians see her as a strong woman, and one of her titles is the “Captain of the Heavenly Armies”. She’s a fighter!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It seems from my reading that the reason that EO reject original sin is because they misunderstand what is meant when people speak about Adam’s descendents inheriting guilt and sin. Some mistakenly believe that Catholics teach that original sin as if it were an actual, personal sin. I wan to share what St. Thomas says about transmission of guilt so you can understand why this misunderstanding arose.

He says mankind is guilty for Adam’s sin collectively.

"Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that “by sharing the same species, many men are one man.” Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man’s first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul’s will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called “original,” just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called “actual.” And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.” (ST I-II, 81, 1)

This is not in the sense that it is a personal guilt. Guilt from my reading is nothing more than the debt of punishment, not necessarily something merited personally.

“A man is not blamed for that which he has from his origin, if we consider the man born, in himself. But it we consider him as referred to a principle, then he may be reproached for it: thus a man may from his birth be under a family disgrace, on account of a crime committed by one of his forbears.” (ST, I-II, 81, 1)

On the other hand, if we were not due punishment in some sense for Adam’s sin, how can we justly be “by nature children of wrath?” Scripture states we are born under condemnation and therefore lacking original justice, which is the essence of original sin according to St. Thomas.

 

[Zekariya]

It seems from my reading that the reason that EO reject original sin is because they misunderstand what is meant when people speak about Adam’s descendents inheriting guilt and sin. Some mistakenly believe that Catholics teach that original sin as if it were an actual, personal sin. I wan to share what St. Thomas says about transmission of guilt so you can understand why this misunderstanding arose.

He says mankind is guilty for Adam’s sin collectively.

"Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that “by sharing the same species, many men are one man.” Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man’s first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul’s will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called “original,” just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called “actual.” And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.” (ST I-II, 81, 1)

This is not in the sense that it is a personal guilt. Guilt from my reading is nothing more than the debt of punishment, not necessarily something merited personally.

“A man is not blamed for that which he has from his origin, if we consider the man born, in himself. But it we consider him as referred to a principle, then he may be reproached for it: thus a man may from his birth be under a family disgrace, on account of a crime committed by one of his forbears.” (ST, I-II, 81, 1)

On the other hand, if we were not due punishment in some sense for Adam’s sin, how can we justly be “by nature children of wrath?” Scripture states we are born under condemnation and therefore lacking original justice, which is the essence of original sin according to St. Thomas.

The East rejects the notion that man in a state of original sin lacks God’s grace.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I think you will have to first define what you mean by “God’s grace” before you deny it is lost. In Western theology, the privation of grace refers to “sanctifying grace,” which is a supernatural habit of grace (I can elaborate on this if necessary). It does not mean that God despises a sinner in every way whatsoever and in no way loves them or helps them. However it does mean that a person without it (sanctifying grace) cannot go to heaven.

Secondly, you will have to give the Eastern explanation of Christ’s words: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Does this apply to infants and those without actual personal sin? Can such people enter into heaven apart from baptism? If not, what about their condition is the cause of this?

Your answer to to those questions will help explain your view. I suspect there is really no contradiction.

 

[Zekariya]

I think you will have to first define what you mean by “God’s grace” before you deny it is lost. In Western theology, the privation of grace refers to “sanctifying grace,” which is a supernatural habit of grace (I can elaborate on this if necessary). It does not mean that God despises a sinner in every way whatsoever and in no way loves them or helps them. However it does mean that a person without it (sanctifying grace) cannot go to heaven.

In the Byzantine East, grace is the uncreated Energies of God.

Secondly, you will have to give the Eastern explanation of Christ’s words: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Does this apply to infants and those without actual personal sin?

Yes.

Can such people enter into heaven apart from baptism?

No.

If not, what about their condition is the cause of this?

The reason is that they are dead.

St John Chrysostom says:
[Romans 5] Ver. 18. “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
And he insists again upon it, saying,
Ver. 19. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xii.html]

The East and the West have different theological language, terminology, and patrimony.

An example being the prominent Byzantine view of final Judgement, that one chooses one’s condition:
"The more consciously and persistently a man strives toward God in his life, the greater will be his joy when he hears: ‘Come unto Me, ye blessed.’ And conversely: the same words will call the fire of horror and torture on those who did not desire Him, who fled and fought or blasphemed Him during their lifetime!

…]

"When ‘the books are opened,’ it will become clear that the roots of all vices lie in the human soul. Here is a drunkard or a lecher: when the body has died, some may think that sin is dead too. No! There was an inclination to sin in the soul, and that sin was sweet to the soul, and if the soul has not repented of the sin and has not freed itself from it, it will come to the Last Judgment also with the same desire for sin. It will never satisfy that desire and in that soul there will be the suffering of hatred. It will accuse everyone and everything in its tortured condition, it will hate everyone and everything. ‘There will be gnashing of teeth’ of powerless malice and the unquenchable fire of hatred.

• St John the Wonderworker, On the Last Judgement

Source: gocportland.org/quot_last_judgement.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

In the Byzantine East, grace is the uncreated Energies of God.

Well, there we go. Sanctifying grace is not an energy of God. It is a quality of the human soul, spiritual “life,” which is obviously lacking in the unjustified.

The imagery of death used by St. John Chrysostom and other fathers is a good and scriptural way to speak of original sin. When speaking of man’s mortality he is not referring only or even principally to physical death, but primarily the death of the soul. But sin is the death of the soul, so man is born with sin in that sense even if he has not committed any sinful act.

The idea of participation in and inherited guilt for Adam’s sin is only used in a rather loose sense. It should not be interpreted after the manner of certain Protestants who hold that man’s very existence is a crime meriting eternal damnation. St. Thomas’s explanation is a good one.

Thanks for the good quotes from St. John the Wonderworker. Can you elaborate what you think the principal difference is between Byzantine and Western emphases on this point? Do you mean the voluntary rejection of God in contrast to God’s unmerited grace, or do you mean the voluntary choice of our eternal destination in contrast to God’s judgment of our condition?

 

[Zekariya]

Well, there we go. Sanctifying grace is not an energy of God. It is a quality of the human soul, spiritual “life,” which is obviously lacking in the unjustified.

I do realize that the East and West have different theology in this regard.

The imagery of death used by St. John Chrysostom and other fathers is a good and scriptural way to speak of original sin. When speaking of man’s mortality he is not referring only or even principally to physical death, but primarily the death of the soul. But sin is the death of the soul, so man is born with sin in that sense even if he has not committed any sinful act.

Yes. However, the Eastern view does not go into sanctifying grace of the lack thereof. This is why the Immaculate Conception is foreign to our theology. We have no need to teach that God removed original sin in order for the Mother of God to be full of grace.

The idea of participation in and inherited guilt for Adam’s sin is only used in a rather loose sense. It should not be interpreted after the manner of certain Protestants who hold that man’s very existence is a crime meriting eternal damnation. St. Thomas’s explanation is a good one.

I agree. We inherit the consequences of the Fall; we are not guilty of Adam’s personal sin that caused the Fall.

Thanks for the good quotes from St. John the Wonderworker. Can you elaborate what you think the principal difference is between Byzantine and Western emphases on this point? Do you mean the voluntary rejection of God in contrast to God’s unmerited grace, or do you mean the voluntary choice of our eternal destination in contrast to God’s judgment of our condition?

Another quote from the same source:
“The Last Judgment knows of no witnesses or written protocols! Everything is inscribed in the souls of men and these records, these ‘books’, are opened at the Judgment. Everything becomes clear to all and to oneself. And some will go to joy, while others — to horror.”

• St John the Wonderworker

First, the West and the East both teach that men voluntarily commit [mortal] sin and, therefore, reject God’s salvation.

The West teaches that God sends men to hell. A common question among (modern) Western Catholics is how a merciful and loving God could send x to hell. The general idea presented is that one is sent to hell against one’s desire for heaven. The emphasis is in God’s sending to heaven or hell.

The Byzantine East teaches that men choose hell. The condition of a soul who loves sin and hates God is what produces the torture that is hell. Our souls show our condition before God and our souls react to God according to their condition. The emphasis of the East is in the soul’s condition causing heaven or hell.

 

[Zekariya]

St Cyril speaking on the consequences of the Fall and of Christ’s Incarnation:
Therefore we say that, since from the transgression of Adam human nature suffered corruption and since our intellect within us is tyrannized by the pleasures of the flesh or by the inborn motions of the flesh, it became necessary for the salvation of us who are upon the earth that the Word of God be made man in order that he might make his own the flesh of man although it was subject to corruption and sick with the love of pleasure. Since he is life and life-giver, he would destroy the corruption in the flesh and rebuke its inborn motions, plainly those which tend toward love of pleasure. For thus it was possible that the sin in our flesh be killed.

We recalled also that the blessed Paul called this inborn motion in us the “law of sin.” Wherefore since human flesh became the Word’s own, the subjection to corruption has come to an end, and since as God, he who made it his own and proclaimed it as his own “did not know sin,” as I said, he also put an end to the sickness of loving pleasure. And the only begotten Word of God has not corrected this for himself, for he is what he always is, but obviously for us. For even if we have been subject to evil from the transgression of Adam, by all means there will come upon us also the good things of Christ, which are immortality and the death of sin.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:9

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Sounds like original sin to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The West teaches that supernatural grace was lost in the fall and everyone with Original Sin lacks it. We do not believe that losing God’s grace is part of the consequences of the Fall. Therefore, we have no “need” to teach the Immaculate Conception which is foreign to the theological language of the East. The Mother of God was born with all of the consequences of the Fall and was full of God’s grace at the same time. She chose out of her free will to never sin.

Since the Western teaches that we cannot have God’s grace and original sin, Mary is taught to have been immaculately conceived so that she could have God’s grace.

Here is the Byzantine view presented by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:
According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arosea theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?” One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God One must note that the acknowledgement of this dogma was preceded in the West by a long period of theological dispute, which lasted from the 12th century, when this teaching appeared, until the 17th century, when it was spread by Jesuits in the Roman Catholic world.

…]

On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me… With Thy governing Spirit establish me;” or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my protector.”

On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the “Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Par. 6). The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God theWord to earth The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.

Read more: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P1N.HTM

I don’t know, kinda, sorta I “think”.

Couple points, its not Grace was completely lost which is impossible to live without, its a perfect state of Grace ceased to exist, bought on not by God but by Adam and Eve.

Which is why according to St Maximus the Confessor, God asks “where are you” (Genesis 3:8-9) for he knew what they did not, they were no longer perfectly graced by their own actions.

The single privilege of Mary was preservation, or Baptismal at the moment of conception. Mary was also “not” subjected to all the consequences of the fall, She had no birth pain according to many of the early church fathers in particular since mentioned, St Maximus the Confessor.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was told

Have your read the Canons from the Council of Orange 529?

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

What’s the difference between inheriting spiritual death and being born lacking grace? If the East were to understand the Immaculate Conception as teaching that Mary was conceived in a state of spiritual life, how would that be different from Latins teaching she was conceived in a state of grace?

Interesting Anthony, another way to view this I’ve come to understand in proper perspective is Baptism and the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed states that baptism is “for the remission of sins”.

Because this is the necessary condition for the reception of the other gifts. For there can be no “release from the powers of the devil” if the sins that gave the devil power over us are not remitted; and the Holy Spirit could not be given until Christ had suffered on the Cross (John 7.39, 20.22).

Thus the controversy then also excels into a contradictory position. If the creed is indeed a point of contention, which it indeed is indicative by the threads here, then why wouldn’t we take it to heart? “The remission of sins”

Thus infant baptism before the age of reason is for what reason? Follow where I’m coming from?

Orange-CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m of the conviction that indeed Luvs2Learn is correct in the analysis of the words that “I was told” as I find from deeper reading in the early Church what we in fact have is different levels of contextual comprehension. And this varies with individuals. Thus what comes into question with the Dogma of the IC at least honestly giving the EO its due respect, is not a variance in understanding by large, but a realization that “dogma” wasn’t needed for what we all already professed and believed. Here I see a legitimate concern from the EO perspective,

In other words here we arrive at the same basic dilemma of the Creed, we have an advanced position without in charity discussion with the EO.

In the EO also from my understanding at least that there’s a couple of acceptable theological theories here. This too leads to controversy and the very quote; “I was told” which may well be from one who either is misunderstanding or indeed embraces a slightly different theology.

 

[Zekariya]

The East teaches consequences of the Fall is the separation of soul and body with the soul being placed in hades. The West teaches that those in a state of Original Sin lack sanctifying grace.

Western apologetics explain Mary’s being full of grace as her not having the consequences of Original Sin and her having sanctifying grace. Many suggest that she might have never died because she had no Original Sin.

Christ was fully man. He voluntarily submitted to having his soul separated from his body and his soul sent to hades since that is what happens to man and he was (and is) a man. Christ was made like us in all things except for sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The East teaches consequences of the Fall is the separation of soul and body with the soul being placed in hades. The West teaches that those in a state of Original Sin lack sanctifying grace. .

The West teaches both and both are true. This is my thinking with further elaboration on Romes part which is consistent with controversy such as with Orange. Not that its relevant to the EO but for demonstrative purpose’s and conversation.

Western apologetics explain Mary’s being full of grace as her not having the consequences of Original Sin and her having sanctifying grace. Many suggest that she might have never died because she had no Original Sin. .

Rome teaches only Mary was preserved by a singular act of Grace. She was the first resurrected after Jesus Christ and St Maximus the Confessor explains this beautifully.

Christ was fully man. He voluntarily submitted to having his soul separated from his body and his soul sent to hades since that is what happens to man and he was (and is) a man. Christ was made like us in all things except for sin.

Christ is the Living God and indeed Gods mystery is just that to the Church and all above man. God never died though for that is impossible. This also relates to Orange and the Bible with the Apostle Paul. After the fall Heaven was closed till the redemption of Jesus Christ. Man also as a consequence per Genesis aka “God” man becomes Dust to Dust, Genesis 3:17-19. So here we see the death of physical and death of the spiritual, which is defeated by the risen living God, Jesus Christ. Which bring into play the remission of sins/Creed also.

 

[Zekariya]

The West teaches both and both are true. This is my thinking with further elaboration on Romes part which is consistent with controversy such as with Orange. Not that its relevant to the EO but for demonstrative purpose’s and conversation.

And the East teaches that Grace is the uncreated Energies of God which makes “sanctifying grace” foreign to our patrimony and theological language.

Christ is the Living God and indeed Gods mystery is just that to the Church and all above man. God never died though for that is impossible. This also relates to Orange and the Bible with the Apostle Paul. After the fall Heaven was closed till the redemption of Jesus Christ. Man also as a consequence per Genesis aka “God” man becomes Dust to Dust, Genesis 3:17-19. So here we see the death of physical and death of the spiritual, which is defeated by the risen living God, Jesus Christ. Which bring into play the remission of sins/Creed also.

I find it dangerous to say, “God never died”, because it risks dividing Christ into two persons. Christ suffered in the flesh while his divinity was and is impassible.

The council did not in any way say that the Word itself, begotten of God by nature, died or was pierced in the side by a spear. For what sort of side, pray tell, does that which is incorporeal have? Or how could life die? But the council said that, because the Word was united to flesh, when his flesh was suffering he appropriated the suffering to himself since his own body was suffering. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 10:1

As we often said, the holy council said that the Word himself, through whom all things were made, suffered; but suffered in his flesh, according to the Scriptures. For, because his body suffered, he himself is said to have suffered, just as also a man’s soul is said to suffer because its body suffers, although by its own nature the soul does not have pain. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 10:3

We confess that he, the Son begotten of God the Father, and only begotten God, through being incapable of suffering according to his own nature, suffered in his own flesh for our sake, according to the Scriptures, and that he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh in his crucified body impassibly, for by the grace of God and for the sake of all he tasted death by having surrendered to it his own body although by nature he was life, and was himself the Resurrection. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:11

“But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? …] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron.” - Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria

 

[GaryTaylor]

And the East teaches that Grace is the uncreated Energies of God which makes “sanctifying grace” foreign to our patrimony and theological language. ]

This is not at odds with Western theology in fact its complimentary. (once one is past the terminology East/West)

I find it dangerous to say, “God never died”,]

Sure it is, though, its a fact, and using your final paragraph would be sufficient for me, I like it.

because it risks dividing Christ into two persons. Christ suffered in the flesh while his divinity was and is impassible.]

Correct and “we” do not do that. BUT with Christ my emphasis was re-focused from the human to Divine/ God, Jesus Christ is all, to elaborate on original sin. My point was the sequence, fall to the Cross and I added in the Creed “remission of sins”. That followed physical and spiritual death the transgression/fall, Genesis 3, no communion with God as there would be no reason for Christs “bloody mess” as “Jesus Christ Superstar” stated. . What would be the purpose?

The council did not in any way say that the Word itself, begotten of God by nature, died or was pierced in the side by a spear. For what sort of side, pray tell, does that which is incorporeal have? Or how could life die? But the council said that, because the Word was united to flesh, when his flesh was suffering he appropriated the suffering to himself since his own body was suffering. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 10:1"

Consequence per God/Genesis per the fall “Dust to dust” . Still you have as per Orange/Scripture death of the soul and physical death thus the redemption. Its a mystery of the Church, you are correct.

As we often said, the holy council said that the Word himself, through whom all things were made, suffered; but suffered in his flesh, according to the Scriptures. For, because his body suffered, he himself is said to have suffered, just as also a man’s soul is said to suffer because its body suffers, although by its own nature the soul does not have pain. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 10:3"

He did suffer that isn’t of question, The humanity of Christ died, its in the Creed, His divinity did not die. This is how God the living God, fully human, fully divine redeems man, thus the resurrection. Though I agree its a fascinating point.

We confess that he, the Son begotten of God the Father, and only begotten God, through being incapable of suffering according to his own nature, suffered in his own flesh for our sake, according to the Scriptures, and that he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh in his crucified body impassibly, for by the grace of God and for the sake of all he tasted death by having surrendered to it his own body although by nature he was life, and was himself the Resurrection. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:11

Life from Life, true God of true God. What does Christ suffering of death on the Cross have to do with our conversation of East/West Fall and sin? My post points to the sequence of events and “why” Christ suffered the Cross.

“But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? …] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron.” - Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria[/INDENT]

Sounds great to me, which corrects the episode in the Garden, thus re-established “communion” with God. So as a result of the scriptural sequence and chain of events in reality, "we believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting’. However, we see the death of the body and now through the risen Christ the eternal salvation of the soul, or the eternal; damnation of the soul, thus death of the soul.

Death of the soul is related to eternal, damnation, for if God created you to exist, you cannot not exist but through refusal to commune with God. Only question as a Christian would be where will one spend that existence, thus damnation death of the soul and which we see through sin/vice/habit further travel from Grace, thus ultimate death of the soul.

You and I are getting off topic, interesting aspects though.

 

[ronyodish]

Thus infant baptism before the age of reason is for what reason?

GaryTaylor,

According to the teachings of Mar Timothy II, a 14th century Patriarch of the Church of the East, a similar question was posited in his treatise on the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments):

If baptism is for the remission of sins why do we baptize infants and children although they do not have sin? In fact, children are brought to baptism although they are without sin ?].

Here is how he responds:

(1) We say: Through the aberration from God men brought down and placed upon their freedom the yoke of servitude of sin. By transgressing the command all the children of Adam became servants of sin like the one who is born of a slave is a slave until he receives emancipation from slavery.

(2) When therefore, the way of God was manifested to men through heavenly light, the wall before them was brought down by their reconciliation with God. And because of their reconciliation with Him they became worthy to be brought for the adoption of sons; because they are freed from their servitude they are worthy of the adoption of sons.

(3) Baptism for the freedom of life is given in the glorious name of the Trinity. Because it is improper that (children) receive the name of the sons of God when they are slaves of sin, they are first set free from the yoke of servitude of sin and then they become worthy of the adoption of sons that they may receive the inheritance of God in their freedom. It is because of this that those who are without sin, like infants and children, are also brought to baptism. The gift for them is not meaningless, because they are born in servitude and they are slaves of the sin of the first man which reigned over all mankind by the transgression of the law (of God). But in baptism they receive their liberation and through the adoption of sons their union takes place. Therefore, we baptize infants although they are without sin, that they be freed from the servitude (of sin) and may become the sons of God.

Taken from Mysteries of the Kingdom: The Sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East by Bishop Mar Awa Royel, pages 149-150.

God bless,

Rony