Is this really Orthodox teaching?

[Alethiaphile]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated the Lord Jsuse Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the batttle 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 sin 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.

I have trouble with the italicized statement. Of course I believe that Christ never sinned, and was free from any taint of sin. However, wasn’t Christ tempted by hunger in the desert? Wasn’t He tempted to forego His passion in the garden? Since when does sinlessness require freedom from sinful desire and temptation?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated the Lord Jsuse Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the batttle 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 sin 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.

I have trouble with the italicized statement. Of course I believe that Christ never sinned, and was free from any taint of sin. However, wasn’t Christ tempted by hunger in the desert? Wasn’t He tempted to forego His passion in the garden? Since when does sinlessness require freedom from sinful desire and temptation?

Of course our Lord was tempted in the desert as the Scriptures say. But I don’t think this teaching, if correctly understood denies it. It seems to me that Jesus desired only to please His Father. He was an example to us of the single-mindedness that is necessary if we would overcome temptations which come to us. Christ’s temptations did not come from within. He had no original sin, no concupiscence, and if I understand correctly, this is a necessary doctrine to hold for Catholics as well as Orthodox.

To understand it correctly, it seems to me essential to distinguish between exterior temptation over which we have no control, to which Christ was made subject, and our interior dispositions over which we are responsible and accountable to God. Christ never faltered by nurturing in his mind, a sinful desire that entered from without. I do not see Christ’s prayer that He might be spared the Passion as a temptation to disobey the Father. It was accompanied with His perfect subjection to the Father’s will.

So you are correct in discerning that it is important to know that Christ faced the world, the flesh, and the devil, just as we must. But Jesus was always victorious without succumbing to even the slightest inward desire to sin. I think a study of these times in His life will teach us how we may imitate Him in gaining more and more control of our own inward desires, and learning ourselves how to defeat our enemies.

I am open to being corrected if I have misunderstood what this Council means. In any case, whatever it means, as a Catholic or Orthodox, I would believe what it teaches whether I understand or not.

Rory

 

[Alethiaphile]

Of course our Lord was tempted in the desert as the Scriptures say. But I don’t think this teaching, if correctly understood denies it. It seems to me that Jesus desired only to please His Father. He was an example to us of the single-mindedness that is necessary if we would overcome temptations which come to us. Christ’s temptations did not come from within. He had no original sin, no concupiscence, and if I understand correctly, this is a necessary doctrine to hold for Catholics as well as Orthodox.
To understand it correctly, it seems to me essential to distinguish between exterior temptation over which we have no control, to which Christ was made subject, and our interior dispositions over which we are responsible and accountable to God. Christ never faltered by nurturing in his mind, a sinful desire that entered from without. I do not see Christ’s prayer that He might be spared the Passion as a temptation to disobey the Father. It was accompanied with His perfect subjection to the Father’s will.
So you are correct in discerning that it is important to know that Christ faced the world, the flesh, and the devil, just as we must. But Jesus was always victorious without succumbing to even the slightest inward desire to sin. I think a study of these times in His life will teach us how we may imitate Him in gaining more and more control of our own inward desires, and learning ourselves how to defeat our enemies.
I am open to being corrected if I have misunderstood what this Council means. In any case, whatever it means, as a Catholic or Orthodox, I would believe what it teaches whether I understand or not.
Rory

Thank you Rory, for your considered answer. It was helpful in clarifying things somewhat, although I am still struggling with it. I understand the distinction between outward and inward temptations, yet it seems to me if there were no inward desires, or concupiscence, then outward stimuli would have no force. Yet, I have trouble believing that Christ didn;t experience real temptation, although I firmly believe He never succumbed to temptation. But it’s hard for me to give meaning to the idea of Christ “assuming” our fallen humanity, which He must have for our salvation, unless He felt our fallenness, before overcoming it. Joe

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hey Joe,

I think maybe you might get a more complete and knowledgable response than I gave on the Apologetics, Traditional Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox/Christianity forums. Over here, it is usually about the large differences that separate Catholics from Mormons, Moslems, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Protestants rather than the finer distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic.

God bless.

Rory

 

[Hesychios]

Hey Joe,

I think maybe you might get a more complete and knowledgable response than I gave on the Apologetics, -]Traditional Catholic/-], or Eastern Orthodox/Christianity forums. Over here, it is usually about the large differences that separate Catholics from Mormons, Moslems, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Protestants rather than the finer distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic.

God bless.

Rory

Scratch the Traditional Catholic forum for now.

They are no longer entertaining discussion and comparison between the Eastern and Western rites, at least for the present.

However, if the question was phrased “Is this really Traditional Catholic teaching?” I think it would have legs.

It is important to reiterate that Fifth Ecumenical Council is valid and operative for both churches, so it is just as much a Catholic question as an Orthodox one.

For the record I think that it is an excellent question, one I have not pondered before myself