Redemption and Nature of Christ, East and West

[wolfpup]

Ok, so in my very limited understanding of both Eastern and Western theology, I see what looks like a contradiction between the theology of Christ’s nature and how it ties into the Atonement and redemption.

Western theology holds that pre-fall, Adam lived in a state of communion with God, with no natural death (?). Post-fall Adam and his descendants have a mark or stain of sin on their souls which means that they are not in communion with God and are subject to death and concupiscence. When Christ comes, this obviously cannot be the case because then he would be subject to sin, and Christ is without sin. Therefore, Christ assumes a pre-fall nature, as does his mother, to avoid this fact. He lives the perfect pre-fall/natural life that Adam should have lived. After the resurrection he perfects his natural body into a glorified and supernatural body, which we then all gain after the general resurrection.

The east, on the other hand does not see Original Sin as a stain, and therefore Adam and his descendants are not as a part of their nature marked with sin. Christ assumes a post-fall nature, though sinless, and perfects it at his resurrection. Because of the difference in understanding about the nature of fallen man, Mary does not need to be immaculately conceived in order to be free from sin (eastern orthodox view).

First, I understand that the Eastern Catholics keep the Eastern understanding of these things, so they must be compatible in some way. Can someone explain how this is possible? I am having a hard time how someone could accept both to be correct explanations.

In the western version, why does Christ, and humanity after baptism, still experience death and a concupiscent nature? Unless both those things are naturally part of pre-fall nature…?
In the East, why is there a difference between fallen nature and sinful nature and why does Christ experience death and the passions even though he is not sinful?
I hope I have made no mistakes in my understanding, please don’t hesitate to correct me.

 

[Aramis]

eternal life requires divine nature.

Post-adam, were are denied that spark of the divine nature which would have been our birthright, and in baptism and chrismation, it is restored to us.

 

[Vico]

Ok, so in my very limited understanding of both Eastern and Western theology, I see what looks like a contradiction between the theology of Christ’s nature and how it ties into the Atonement and redemption.

Western theology holds that pre-fall, Adam lived in a state of communion with God, with no natural death (?). Post-fall Adam and his descendants have a mark or stain of sin on their souls which means that they are not in communion with God and are subject to death and concupiscence. When Christ comes, this obviously cannot be the case because then he would be subject to sin, and Christ is without sin. Therefore, Christ assumes a pre-fall nature, as does his mother, to avoid this fact. He lives the perfect pre-fall/natural life that Adam should have lived. After the resurrection he perfects his natural body into a glorified and supernatural body, which we then all gain after the general resurrection.

The east, on the other hand does not see Original Sin as a stain, and therefore Adam and his descendants are not as a part of their nature marked with sin. Christ assumes a post-fall nature, though sinless, and perfects it at his resurrection. Because of the difference in understanding about the nature of fallen man, Mary does not need to be immaculately conceived in order to be free from sin (eastern orthodox view).

First, I understand that the Eastern Catholics keep the Eastern understanding of these things, so they must be compatible in some way. Can someone explain how this is possible? I am having a hard time how someone could accept both to be correct explanations.

In the western version, why does Christ, and humanity after baptism, still experience death and a concupiscent nature? Unless both those things are naturally part of pre-fall nature…?
In the East, why is there a difference between fallen nature and sinful nature and why does Christ experience death and the passions even though he is not sinful?
I hope I have made no mistakes in my understanding, please don’t hesitate to correct me.

This is incorrect. From Catholic Encyclopedia:
A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature. When God created man, He was not content with bestowing upon him the essential endowments required by man’s nature. He raised him to a higher state, adding certain gifts to which his nature had no claim. … Some of these are absolutely supernatural, i.e. beyond the reach of all created nature (even of the angels), and elevate the creature to a dignity and perfection natural to God alone; others are only relatively supernatural (preternatural), i.e. above human nature only and elevate human nature to that state of higher perfection which is natural to the angels. The original state of man comprised both of these, and when he fell he lost both. Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored.

newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

Christ is the Lamb, he willingly went to his slaughter: by death he trampled death, and to those in the tombs he granted life. Those that were in hades from the Fall to the time of the Resurrection were released. Also those after, receiving the Holy Spirit through baptism may be saved if they continue in the faith and holiness.

 

[wolfpup]

Vico:

I am still a little confused. Perhaps an Orthodox could chime in? I have very definatly read that eastern theology sees Christ as being born with a fallen human nature, though not with original sin. Or would this only be Orthodox theology?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Vico:

I am still a little confused. Perhaps an Orthodox could chime in? I have very definatly read that eastern theology sees Christ as being born with a fallen human nature, though not with original sin. Or would this only be Orthodox theology?

Actually, God forbid any Orthodox Christian from saying that Christ was born with a fallen human nature!

Where does one find such a thing stated . . .and by whom?

Alex

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I am still a little confused. Perhaps an Orthodox could chime in? I have very definatly read that eastern theology sees Christ as being born with a fallen human nature, though not with original sin. Or would this only be Orthodox theology?

From Chalcedon 451 A.D.:
So,* following the saintly fathers*, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

mb-soft.com/believe/txs/chalcedo.htm

 

[wolfpup]

Actually, God forbid any Orthodox Christian from saying that Christ was born with a fallen human nature!

Where does one find such a thing stated . . .and by whom?

Unfortunatly I cannot find a proper source at the moment - but I have heard it said both on this forum and on Orthodox forums.
The idea goes that he must have had a fallen nature otherwise he would not be one of us, and could therefore not redeem us by uniting our nature to his. I think the distinction is made between a sinful nature and one that is fallen i.e subject to concupiscence and death.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wolfpup,

Western theology holds that pre-fall, Adam lived in a state of communion with God, with no natural death (?). Post-fall Adam and his descendants have a mark or stain of sin on their souls which means that they are not in communion with God and are subject to death and concupiscence. When Christ comes, this obviously cannot be the case because then he would be subject to sin, and Christ is without sin. Therefore, Christ assumes a pre-fall nature, as does his mother, to avoid this fact. He lives the perfect pre-fall/natural life that Adam should have lived. After the resurrection he perfects his natural body into a glorified and supernatural body, which we then all gain after the general resurrection.

I think you are misunderstanding the Western teaching on the matter. The Latin Catholic Church does not teach that Christ assumed a pre-fall nature, nor does the Catholic Church teach that Mary had a pre-fall nature due to the IC.

Before we can proceed with this discussion, I would ask that you provide sources (preferably Magisterial sources) for the statement I highlighted in your OP above.

The east, on the other hand does not see Original Sin as a stain, and therefore Adam and his descendants are not as a part of their nature marked with sin.

On this point, this is only a difference of terminology. To Easterns (and Orientals), “sin” refers primarily (if not only) to what Westerns would call “actual sin.” In distinction, the Latin Church, defines “sin” more broadly as “the death of the soul” or, spiritual separation from God. With that understanding, Easterns (and Orientals) do indeed believe, along with their Latin brethren, that human nature is “marked with sin” - that is, human nature is marked with a natural spiritual separation from God. But, as noted, Easterns and Orientals would not normally use that terminology, because “sin” to us refers only to “actual sin.”

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wolfpup]

I think you are misunderstanding the Western teaching on the matter. The Latin Catholic Church does not teach that Christ assumed a pre-fall nature, nor does the Catholic Church teach that Mary had a pre-fall nature due to the IC.

Ok, this is obviously a misunderstanding on my part then. If Christ does not have Original Sin, then I presumed he was born like Adam i.e pre-fallen. I don’t have any official source, I merely assumed.
If Christ is born without Original Sin, in what way is he born without a pre-fall nature?

On this point, this is only a difference of terminology. To Easterns (and Orientals), “sin” refers primarily (if not only) to what Westerns would call “actual sin.” In distinction, the Latin Church, defines “sin” more broadly as “the death of the soul” or, spiritual separation from God. With that understanding, Easterns (and Orientals) do indeed believe, along with their Latin brethren, that human nature is “marked with sin” - that is, human nature is marked with a natural spiritual separation from God. But, as noted, Easterns and Orientals would not normally use that terminology, because “sin” to us refers only to “actual sin.”

That does really help. Thank you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wolfpup,

Ok, this is obviously a misunderstanding on my part then. If Christ does not have Original Sin, then I presumed he was born like Adam i.e pre-fallen. I don’t have any official source, I merely assumed.
If Christ is born without Original Sin, in what way is he born without a pre-fall nature?

He was subject to death, aging, sickness, emotional states (sadness, anger, etc.).

Let me put it this way - the Grace St. Mary received at her Immaculate Conception is basically the same Grace we receive at Baptism. It is a Grace that affects our SPIRITUAL state, not our physical states. The fact is, the Fall had both spiritual AND physical effects on human nature. The Grace Mary received at her IC did not overcome the physical effects of the Fall, only the spiritual effects. In the exact same way, neither does the Grace we recieve at Baptism overcome the physical effects of the Fall, but only the spiritual effects. I mean, would you claim that we, because we are cleansed of the stain of Original Sin by Baptism, have a “pre-Fall nature?” So if Jesus (or Mary) never had the stain of Original Sin, what justificiation would you have for stating that Jesus or Mary had a “Pre-fall nature?”

It might also help for you to distinguish between “Original Sin” and “the stain of Original Sin.” The term “Original Sin” normally refers to EVERTHING that is associated with the concept of Original Sin - its origins in Adam and Eve, its physical AND spiritual effects on the human race, etc. The term “stain of Original Sin” in distinction refers ONLY to the SPIRITUAL effects of Original Sin. The two terms are very often confused, and is the source of a lot of misunderstanding between Catholics and non-Catholics.

That does really help. Thank you.

I am really glad the explanation helped. There are way too many people (IMO) who try to paint Catholicism and Orthodoxy as contradictory entities, when SO MUCH of the difference is really only a matter of theological terminology. And we know what St. Paul said about arguing about words (see my signature line below )!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

Unfortunatly I cannot find a proper source at the moment - but I have heard it said both on this forum and on Orthodox forums.
The idea goes that he must have had a fallen nature otherwise he would not be one of us, and could therefore not redeem us by uniting our nature to his. I think the distinction is made between a sinful nature and one that is fallen i.e subject to concupiscence and death.

It is best to avoid the use of the term “sinful nature” because of its Calvinist overtones, but I have no problem with your saying that Christ assumed our fallen humanity, that is, if by that assertion you mean that He assumed our corruptible and mortal nature as it is inherited by us from Adam.

 

[wolfpup]

He was subject to death, aging, sickness, emotional states (sadness, anger, etc.).

It is best to avoid the use of the term “sinful nature” because of its Calvinist overtones, but I have no problem with your saying that Christ assumed our fallen humanity, that is, if by that assertion you mean that He assumed our corruptible and mortal nature as it is inherited by us from Adam.

The problem I am having is that I am seeing Orthodox state that Original Sin is not an inherited stain - that there is no difference between having ancestral sin and having it’s consequences, meaning that Christ could have been born with “Ancestral Sin” because there is no inherited sinful stain. The two views seem incompatible from this viewpoint.

 

[Vico]

wolfpup,
There you can break ancestral sin down into two components: the supernatural and the preternatural. We are born with a loss of both of what Adam and Eve had in both of these categories, but the supernatural loss is the stain of original sin (without any personal fault association).

 

[wolfpup]

wolfpup,
There you can break ancestral sin down into two components: the supernatural and the preternatural. We are born with a loss of both of what Adam and Eve had in both of these categories, but the supernatural loss is the stain of original sin (without any personal fault association).

I see, thank you very much.