Maronite rite, communion with Rome and Infant baptism

[pacloc]

Everything you wrote seems correct except that you believe Cyril and Athanasius contradict each other. If anything Athanasius seems to think that man was never made corruptible by anyone other than himself through personal sins. If you read paragraphs 4 and 5 in Chapter one it is clear that the prevalence of sin and creation of uglier and graver sins has made the world full of sin that is impossible to avoid. Though he mentions nothing of infant death, you could conclude that an infant never became corruptible because they from creation are made in the God’s image and never sinned. Bodily corruption is something left over from the consequence of Adam’s sin, but has been transformed into a test in faith and growth into divinity. It can either be a tragedy or a transformation with the hope of resurrection. I am sorry for my tone yesterday.

(5) This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, **but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. **Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world."[10] When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment. Indeed, they had in their sinning surpassed all limits; for, having invented wickedness in the beginning and so involved themselves in death and corruption, they had gone on gradually from bad to worse, not stopping at any one kind of evil, but continually, as with insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sins.

Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Everything you wrote seems correct except that you believe Cyril and Athanasius contradict each other.

I think that either one of them is wrong, or one of them is exaggerating. It does not have to be a direct contradiction.

If anything Athanasius seems to think that man was never made corruptible by anyone other than himself through personal sins. If you read paragraphs 4 and 5 in Chapter one it is clear that the prevalence of sin and creation of uglier and graver sins has made the world full of sin that is impossible to avoid.

No, I don’t quite see that: He comments very much on the multiplication of sin in the world. But he doesn’t actually define it as “personal” transgression (aka. the act of sinning against the law,etc.) by each and every individual. You’re overlooking that he speaks about groups of people, only. If Athanasius had tried to tie actual sin to each individual, he would be contradicting Paul who said: Romans 5:14 death reigned … even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense (eg: transgression) of Adam. There are also scriptures which talk about individuals under the law of Moses who were completely blameless before the law, and other who did no transgression: eg: like Luke 18:21, or the references to Zechariah and Elizabeth before the angel came to him and he suffered doubt. If these figures had died before they sinned, or lost faith, (and I don’t believe that’s the case with the rich man in Luke 18:21) ; each person could have been perfect saints – and not subject to corruption; Notice: Athanasius speaks of groups of people, so we need to be careful not to overstate the individuals power in this subject, but when it comes to incorruption Athanasius says “man” rather then “men” as he does elsewhere; but regarding transgression, and sin, he maintained a distinct plural form of address (eg: them/their). The transgression is spoken of in a way which always is more prone to be interpreted as groups of people than with individuals.

Athanasius said:

For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: “The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption”

Though he mentions nothing of infant death, you could conclude that an infant never became corruptible because they from creation are made in the God’s image and never sinned. Bodily corruption is something left over from the consequence of Adam’s sin,

Yes. Though you are now speaking of an infant is an individual, but Athanasius speaks of sin leading to corruption in terms of groups. But, as Athanasius makes it clear: an individual who follows the law perfectly, does not corrupt.

So: corruption is not just a leftover from Adam and Eve, it’s directly connected to a present failure of some kind of the individual to do as God wants them to do.

So, anytime we have a saint – eg: one who repents of a sin in confession, they are still subject to corruption, unless complete expiation is made for the sin (not just being forgiven) and the angels come to the defense of the body once it has died.

It’s also important to note that there are saints who to this day have not corrupted; and , again, it is their union with Jesus in his body that prevents corruption: eg: “I will not allow my faithful one to suffer corruption.” (Psalm 16:10)

Even Moses, to whom God merely said “Moses is faithful in all my household” (Numbers 12:7)— that proclamation was enough to cause the Angels to deny the curse in Genesis, in spite of a community sin which Moses bore the guilt of;. Genesis 2:7 vs Genesis 3:14, and Genesis 3:19. VS. Jude 1:9

 

[Huiou_Theou]

continued…

but [corruption] has been transformed into a test in faith and growth into divinity.

I don’t quite see what you mean by it’s being a test in faith…
Corruption is a sign that a transgression of the law is involved with the child, and that they are unworthy of heaven for some reason that we are not aware of. But unlike a saint, we can’t assume that they had a good confession and are merely corrupting as part of the balance in making ammends for sin committed during their life.

It can either be a tragedy or a transformation with the hope of resurrection. I am sorry for my tone yesterday.

Peace to you my brother.
We all hope for things of the resurrection, for everyone.

But, let’s consider the very quote you gave me, again – because there is one point still to be thought through carefully:

Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.

The word “all” doesn’t necessarily imply every single person, or every single man; Sometimes all means a representative sample of the group being spoken of , and sometimes it means all without exception.

In Athanasius, it doesn’t clearly include every individual – for: If death has lost it’s power over all, then that merely proves there are SOME people who have escaped that power; For if even one man escaped death, it would no longer have power over all men;

But the quote goes even farther, for I know Athanasius doesn’t mean all men are made incorrupt – as that would contradict the bible all over the place, and especially touching the resurrection – for we know that when people rise, some will rise to “corruption”, AKA the second death mentioned in Genesis but in an eternal way: Cf: Isaiah 66:24 “for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched”, and again: Revelation 20:6, “Blessed and Holy are those who have part in the first resurrection; on these the second death has no power”, Revelation 20:14. “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death and whomever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

So the words “over all” can only really apply to those who receive the promise, and who are in the single (united) body of Christ, Jesus, whether temporarily or eternally ; for anyone outside that body will eventually rise to an eternal corruption with worm and fire.

So, I understand Athanasius’s words, like Pauls in Romans, to refer to a widening of the scope of salvation from a select few men (those who belong to Israel) – over to “all men”, meaning --representatives from all nations who were previously not allowed into the promise which was given to Israel Alone. ( Not to exclude people like Elijah, and Enoch, who are in the direct line of the promise from Eve to Jesus, the Christ. )

But – none the less, there are groups of people who are in the body of Christ, and those who are not; and the punishment for sin and the transgression itself, was not individualistic – but cast in terms of groups as well.

For even the devil, in the oirignal Greek, cast the temptation in terms of a group for he said: “when you[all] eat of it”. And, if you pay attention – the sequence in the Greek is such that when Eve (who was not given the law) ate of the fruit, the scriptures are very clear that her eyes were NOT opened. It was not until they both ate, that the fall happened and “their” eyes (eg:simultaneously) were opened.

So – when, Paul says that even one spouse can sanctify the other he is really just looking carefully at how the fall happened; and don’t fail to notice that once they sinned as a GROUP the whole body (one flesh) was corrupted, and therefore the punishment fell on them, and whomever shared their corrupted flesh.

So – rereading Athanasius: What I see is this: He ties incorruption to union with the flesh of Christ, as in one body. It is not that Athanasius is claiming that a single body existing apart from us as Christians causes us to not corrupt; rather Athanasius means the same as Paul, eg: that because Jesus has left his Father, Adam, and his mother Eve, and cloven to a wife (the church), and the two have become one flesh – AKA a single body – it is for this reason, that we are sanctified by his flesh in a non-sexual eucharistic covenant, that we will no longer corrupt in the first resurrection.

Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 4:30-32
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery and I speak concerning Christ and the church.

It is also, specifically, because our salvation is related to a covenant in his body – that there is concern when infants who can not enter the covenant through Baptism or Eucharist are concerned.

The absolute nature of the need to enter Christs body and therefore be part of his family either as a child, or covenant spouse, is made quite clear with two absolute statements regarding Eucharist and Baptism:

John 6:53-54 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you; but whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 3:3 Unless you are born from above, you cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God.