General Eastern Catholic Questions

[dvdjs]

The Immaculate Conception states that the Blessed Mother was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. This means she does not have a “corrupt human nature” (ie: suffer from concupiscence ) as the rest do (except Our Lord).

CR:

Hmmm… Probably time to consult a certified theologian, as we are getting into words that can be used in a common way, but are also theological jargon with specific nuanced meanings.

It this clear that “concupiscence” as developed in your link (beyond and well beyond “any yearning of the soul for good”) has a technical meaning that goes beyond merely the temptation to sin to which even our Lord was subjected.

And notwithstanding the new advent article that I linked to that delimits the sin and stain of original sin to the deprivation of sanctifying grace, your link includes freedom from “concupiscence” as part of the the IC. I don’t think, that this gift of perfect harmony between reason and appetitite is dogmatized in ID, however, or that this gift is specifically considered independent, rather than a consequence of the gift of lavish grace.

As to the “corrupt human nature”, your link states that “it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.”

 

[Vico]

By corrupt I mean inclined toward sin and subject to suffering and death. I agree that a significant aspect of ancestral sin is the loss of union with God, or in Latin terms “sanctifying grace” or “original justice”, but my concern is with the ontological change within human nature that resulted from the fall. What I’m trying to do is translate the Latin dogma into Orthodox dogma, so to speak, and see if there’s a difference in terminology or emphasis, or a real difference in theology.

Then you would have to see Mary as preserved from half of the consequences of the ancestral sin. From the ancestral sin to death and from death to sin again. But the death brings fear and doubt, and magnified desires for things. Those things that come with the nature of the physical body and vices, and the loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The sanctifying grace is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which strengthens us against the vices, but we still have physical death and diseases.

Watch out for the term concupiscence because there are two different defintions for that, one Catholic, and one non-Catholic from the Calvinists (I think). It is not defined as sin by Catholics, because we have free will to resist.

(I posted the following on another thread here on CAF.)

Infants are baptized, although sinless, for they are lacking something brought by death, true in Latin or Eastern Catholic or Orthodox theology; They need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom explains, they receive: “sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance”. These are what we have lost through the effects of the ancestral sin, and are one dimension of death.

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.” – John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I can completely accept the idea that the Theotokos was born with sanctifying grace and therefore without original sin as the Catholic Church understands it, as long it is understood that this does not imply that she was born without a corrupt human nature. Do you think that the catholic.com article is misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception since it states that she “was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings”?

I’m glad we can agree on at least the purely spiritual understanding of the IC.

As far as corruption, we can agree that Mary had a human nature subject to physical mortality and physical corruption.

I guess the real issue, as discussed by brothers Chaldean Rite and Dvdjs - is concupiscence. Did Mary have or not have concupiscence?

My understanding of concupiscence, informed by St. Athanasius, is that it is the disordered use of reason.

I would agree with brother Dvdjs that this is not directly affirmed by the dogma of the IC. The dogma of the IC simply states that Mary was preserved from all stain of Original Sin. The stains are the consequences that are not part of our human nature (hence, they are called “stains”).

The question is, is concupiscence part of our human nature? If it is part of our human nature, then it is not included in the definition of the IC, and Mary would possess concupiscence (more poignant given the fact that the Catholic Church does not understand concupiscence as a sin, unlike some Protestants).

Conversely, If it is not part of our human nature, then it would be a stain and thereby included in the definition Hence, Mary could not have concupiscence.

The determination is made more complicated if one accepts the Athanasian view that concupiscence is as much the result of the animal/bestial part of our human nature as the loss of Original holiness. So there is both a natural (animal nature) and supernatural (loss of Original Holiness) component of concupiscence. Reason dictates that if Mary was holy from the first moment of her existence (i.e., never experienced the loss of Original Holiness), then she would not have concupiscence. On the other hand, it must be admitted that this is a syllogistic determination that is not the direct subject of the dogma of the IC.

I think most Catholics would say that Mary did not have concupiscence. But it appears that one is free to believe that Mary possessed concupiscence. Since concupiscence is not seen as a sin in Catholic teaching, then it does not violate any Catholic teaching on the utter sinlessness of Mary.

Also keep in mind that a belief that Mary did not have concupiscence does not violate the principle that Mary resisted sin throughout her life. Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence, yet were certainly able to sin. The lack of concupiscence does not mean that one cannot sin (as if Mary had no free will). It simply means that one has the perfect use of reason.

I hope that helps to promote understanding between us (if not our Churches - yet ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Thank you all for your responses, mutual understanding is exactly what I’m hoping to accomplish here. It seems that the issue is much more complicated than a simple explanation would allow, and I’ll have to continue reading and studying the underlying definitions and promulgations. My primary concern is again that the dogma not contradict the Orthodox emphasis that Christ assumed our fallen nature.

 

[mardukm]

Thank you all for your responses, mutual understanding is exactly what I’m hoping to accomplish here. It seems that the issue is much more complicated than a simple explanation would allow, and I’ll have to continue reading and studying the underlying definitions and promulgations. My primary concern is again that the dogma not contradict the Orthodox emphasis that Christ assumed our fallen nature.

How does the EOC define “fallen human nature?”

Specifically, what are its components? Did Christ have a disordered use of reason? Did He suffer and die only because He willed Himself to do so, or because He had a human nature that was able to suffer and die?

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

I need to retract what I said about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ assuming a corrupt human nature. I’ve done further reading in Orthodox sources such as the book that I quoted earlier which directly contradict this idea. I should have rather said that Christ assumed a truly human nature, but one free from ancestral or actual sin. To quote St. Athanasius in “On the Incarnation”:

“All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man.”

Lord have mercy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I need to retract what I said about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ assuming a corrupt human nature. I’ve done further reading in Orthodox sources such as the book that I quoted earlier which directly contradict this idea. I should have rather said that Christ assumed a truly human nature, but one free from ancestral or actual sin. To quote St. Athanasius in “On the Incarnation”:

“All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man.”

Lord have mercy.

That is quite a heady admission for an EO! The rhetoric “Mary had to have a corrupt human nature, otherwise, Jesus would not have taken on anything and we would not be saved!” is such a common (and wholly puzzling IMO) argument against the IC from Orthodox circles. Without exception, whenever I have asked these Orthodox, “you mean Jesus’ reason was disordered?” the response has been silence.

What Jesus received from Mary was, as St. Palamas taught, “both new and ours.”

The understanding between us (if not our Churches - yet ) is definitely heading in the positive direction.

Share this with your girlfriend.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

I would like to quote a relevant section from “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” again concerning the human nature of Christ:

“The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the battle with passions. If the Word of God says that the Son of God came ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3), it is thereby expressing the idea that this flesh was true human flesh, but not sinful flesh; rather, it was completely pure of every sin and corruption, both of the ancestral and of voluntary sin. In His earthly life the Lord was free of any sinful desire, of every inward temptation; for the human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is united hypostatically to the Divinity.”

Excerpt from the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

“IIF anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ,** vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh**… let him be anathema.”

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

At this point I would have to say that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a permissable theological opinion. The east has never made a formal promulgation on the issue, but does insist in her complete holiness which she achieved through her spiritual labor and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I would only say that she was subject to suffering and death as a result of being born into a fallen world.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I would only say that she was subject to suffering and death as a result of being born into a fallen world.

Isn’t this a benign point? Who is free from suffering except the Angels?

 

[kaiserhaus]

From a practicing Eastern rite Catholic, who converted from the Church of England, to various protestants sects, to the RC Church, and finally to eastern Catholicism…my journey to eastern faith has been bumpy and interesting, to say the least. Without quoting anyone in particular, but coming from my own place in eastern Catholicism, do this for me: think about Mary; about God choosing her to be the Mother of His Son. Think about God pre-ordaining the family His Son and our Redeemer would be born into and raised in. God created a perfect vessel for His Son to be created in - God would not choose something less for His Only Son. And think about Mary, growing up, preparing to become a good wife and mother in the Jewish tradition. She looked forward to the betrothal with Joseph and pledged herself to him. Then she is visited by an Angel, of all things, and discovers she is to bear the Savior, the Son of God. Wow! I am over-awed at times just receiving Communion. Can you imagine what it would be like to walk the earth, knowing you are carrying the Son of God in your womb? And then, the miraculous situations building to the perfect birth of Our Lord in a cave with farm animals. But still, Mary knew He was the Son of God. And living with and raising the Son of God. Where would sin ever enter into the picture? If we try and picture ourselves in the place of God and His saints, at times sin seems to be so far removed from the picture we conjure up. The perfection of the actual thing is probably beyond our simple minds, when we put ourselves up against God, His Son (and the Church Fathers who have pondered these questions for millenia). Mary, the Theotokos and ever pure Mother of God is remembered in our Vespers with these words:

"O Holy Theotokos, save us!

More honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who without stain bore God the Word; you are truly Theotokos, you do we exalt!"

Hope that adds to your discussion from a slightly different perspective! Blessings, always!

Diaconissa Ruth
:newidea:

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t this a benign point? Who is free from suffering except the Angels?

Benign, but highly important for Christological dogma. It is this human nature - this flesh - subject to suffering and mortality that Jesus acquired from Mary. It is this human nature that Jesus took on and transformed with his death and Resurrection.

Blessings,
Marduk