Alex said:
My problem is that I cannot recognize either Orthodox doctrine or Catholic doctrine in Stuart's explanation.

Dustin responds: In my opinion, both Catholics and Orthodox have formed their opinions about the issue, and will settle it once and for all at the 8th council.

anastasios

>>Ontology is here defined as being concerned with the nature of being. The nature of human beings changed after the Fall (hence, Fallen nature), therefore it is not inappropriate to note that this is an ontological difference because it relates to the nature of human beings -- two different natures, one mortal and onr immortal.<<

Look, there WAS a change in man after the Fall. No one denies that. What I want to avoid is the Protestant heresy of the total depravity of man. If man's ontology changed then it could be argued that he's no longer man. That's a problem.

Maybe I'm quibbling over terms, but I think it's important. I also don't think we disagree that much.

Ignatius --

Perhaps we are quibbling over terms.

In any case, though, I'm more concerned with the following: "It's the same thing for Jesus. He was immortal but freely gave up his life. He had an unfallen nature because if He didn't He couldn't redeem Man as a man."

Let's look at this step by step.

Jesus is not the same as the Theotokos, obviously - his humanity is en-hypostasized. He was immortal because his divine-human nature was not subject to death. He took on death not because he was subject to it, but because he willed to do so to redeem humanity.

It's hard to tell what you mean by "if He didn't He couldn't redeem Man as a man". It seems to indicate that Christ's human nature had to be pre-fall so that Christ would not be subject to death and thereby could free man from death. Is that what you're saying? The Orthodox Church teaches that Christ was not subject to death, not because he partook of an unfallen human nature that was not subject to death a priori, but rather because his humanity was en-hypostasized with the divine-human person of Jesus Christ -- in short, He in his humanity could not be subject to death because He is God. The Orthodox/Byzantine hymns for Christmas, for example, repeatedly refer to how the fallen human nature has been lifted up through union with Christ.

Jesus, therefore, partook of our *fallen* nature, the nature that was in need of redemption. It is this nature that is en-hypostasized, and thereby made no longer subject to death through the hypostatic union with divinity, restored to the state of Adam before the Fall, and, further, perfected in the person of Christ, in the hypostatic union of Christ's person. Nevertheless, Christ takes death upon himself as an act of will so that the rest of humanity which is not en-hypostasized with Him can be freed from the law of death, not hypostatically, but through grace. The unfallen human nature, even though not yet perfect, has no need of redemption -- it is the fallen nature that has need of redemption, and it is this nature that is taken and perfected in Christ -- for the person of Christ by hypostatic union, and for the rest of us through grace.

Brendan

Brendan,
If a man falls into a pit and another comes along and rescues him he is saved is he not?
And if a man is saved from falling into a pit is he not also saved? Both are of the same human nature. One was saved before their fall another after.

Stephanos

Stephanos --

"If a man falls into a pit and another comes along and rescues him he is saved is he not?
And if a man is saved from falling into a pit is he not also saved? Both are of the same human nature. One was saved before their fall another after."

That doesn't address the point I was making, however, because it glosses over the existential difference in the two human natures. The pit analogy doesn't convey adequately the difference between mortal and immortal -- a substantial difference, an existential difference.

It's not a case of "total depravity" as the Calvinists argued, where everything good in human nature was conmpletely obliterated by the Fall. But it is a case of an existential difference between mortal being and immortal being, by nature. Human nature *changed* after the Fall and took on a mortal character, which changed it existentially. To the extent that Mary the Theotokos shares only in the pre-Fall nature, then she as well is existentially different from you and me -- if that is the case, she is human, but her human nature is not like that of any other human who was ever born. That's the point.

Brendan

Just to follow up with some materials I looked at last evening.

The first is from "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "Secondly, this notion of salvation implies -- although many have been reluctant to say this openly -- that Christ assumed not juts unfallen but fallen human nature. As the Epistle to the Hebrews insists (and in all the New Testament there is no more important Christological text than this): 'We do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but he was in all points tempted exactly as we are, yet without sinning' (4:15). Christ lives out His life on earth under the conditions of the fall. He is not himself a sinful person, but in his solidarity with fallen man he accepts in full the consequences of Adam's sin. He accepts to the full not only the physical consequences, such as weariness, bodily pain, and eventually the separation of body and soul at death. He accepts also the moral consequences, the loneliness, the alienation, the inward conflict. It may seem a bold thing to ascribe all this to the living God, but a consistent doctrine of the Incarnation requires nothing less. If Christ had merely assumed unfallen human nature, living out his earthly life in the situation of Adam in paradise, the he would not be touched with the feeling of *our* infirmities, nor would he have been tempted in everything exactly as *we* are. And in that case he would not be *our* saviour. St. Paul goes so far as to write: 'God has made him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake' (2 Cor. 5:21). We are not to think here solely in terms of som juridical transaction, whereby Christ, himself guiltless, somehow has our guilt 'imputed' to him in an exterior manner. Much more is involved than this. Christ saves us by experiencing *from within*, as one of us, all that we suffer inwardly through living in a sinful world."
The Orthodox Way, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press (1998) pp. 75-6.

This understanding is likewise supported by several passages from the Orthodox hymnography appointed for the feast of the Nativity (Quotes are from "The Festal Menaion", St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998 -- emphases added in all cases):

"Adam, though formed from dust, shared in the higher breath of life; yet through the beguilement of a woman he slipped and fell into corruption. But now, beholding Christ born of a woman, he cries aloud: 'O Thou, who for my sake HAS BECOME AS I AM, holy art Thou, O Lord'". Canon I, Canticle 3 (Canon I of Nativity is attributed to St. Cosmas).

"Obedient to the decree of Ceasar, Thou wast enrolled among his servants, O Christ, and Thou has set us free who were servants of the enemy and sin. SHARING WHOLLY IN OUR POVERTY, THOU HAST MADE OUR CLAY GODLIKE THROUGH THY UNION AND PARTICIPATION IN IT." Canon I, Canticle 5.

"God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, seeing our nature powerless to guard unharmed its ancient fellowship with Him, now grants it new strength: abasing Himself, IN A SECOND ACT OF FELLOWSHIP HE MAKES IT ONCE AGAIN FREE OF THE PASSIONS." Canon II, Canticle 6.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 05-16-2001).]

>>Jesus is not the same as the Theotokos, obviously - his humanity is en-hypostasized. He was immortal because his divine-human nature was not subject to death. He took on death not because he was subject to it, but because he willed to do so to redeem humanity.<<

Well, yes and no. Yes, Christ is immortal because He is divine. However, even an unfallen human nature is subject to death, albeit an unnatural one.

>>It's hard to tell what you mean by "if He didn't He couldn't redeem Man as a man". It seems to indicate that Christ's human nature had to be pre-fall so that Christ would not be subject to death and thereby could free man from death. Is that what you're saying?<<

Not exactly. I was saying that Christ’s nature had to be unfallen because He was a perfect man, not a perfected man. There is I think a slight albeit important difference.

>>The Orthodox Church teaches that Christ was not subject to death, not because he partook of an unfallen human nature that was not subject to death a priori, but rather because his humanity was en-hypostasized with the divine-human person of Jesus Christ -- in short, He in his humanity could not be subject to death because He is God.<<

As I stated above, even an unfallen human nature could die a violent death (which crucifixion would certainly qualify for). However because Christ IS a Divine person He is impervious to death, strictly speaking.

>>The Orthodox/Byzantine hymns for Christmas, for example, repeatedly refer to how the fallen human nature has been lifted up through union with Christ.<<

Of course OUR fallen human nature is lifted up via union with Christ. I just don’t think this is precluded if Christ Himself was unfallen.

>>Jesus, therefore, partook of our *fallen* nature, the nature that was in need of redemption. It is this nature that is en-hypostasized, and thereby made no longer subject to death through the hypostatic union with divinity, restored to the state of Adam before the Fall, and, further, perfected in the person of Christ, in the hypostatic union of Christ's person.<<

Basically, the only problem I have with this position is that, in effect, Christ had to be redeemed Himself. He is fallen and then, through the hypostatic union, made perfect. I have never read this in the Fathers (not saying it’s not there, just that I don’t remember it) nor any of the Councils.

I still say that since there’s no change of ontology to a different “thing” from the Fall then there’s no problem regarding Christ having an unfallen nature and redeeming fallen man. Human nature is human nature, in a sense. If Christ’s human nature was unfallen it could still redeem fallen human nature BECAUSE it was unfallen (all men are united to Christ in some way via the Incarnation).

>> The unfallen human nature, even though not yet perfect, has no need of redemption -- it is the fallen nature that has need of redemption, and it is this nature that is taken and perfected in Christ<<

I guess this is the problem point, then. Basically, you’re saying that Christ was redeemed too. I have never heard this before but there’s something that just doesn’t “feel right” about it to me.

Regarding your answer to Stephanos:
>>That doesn't address the point I was making, however, because it glosses over the existential difference in the two human natures. The pit analogy doesn't convey adequately the difference between mortal and immortal -- a substantial difference, an existential difference<<

If there is a substantial difference in human nature after the fall then it is no longer human nature, it seems.

Dear Brother in Christ!

Or the next Ecumenical Council which, hopefully, will be one in which the unity of the Churches will be achieved.

As to its actual number, the Council in which Photios was exonerated is often referred to as the "Eighth Council" and the later Council that dealt with St Gregory Palamas is called the "Ninth" Council. This too will be dealt with by that future Council and we should pray for its hastening!

Stuart is a person whom I would only greet by making a prostration to the ground before him first!

As the learned intellectual, historian, theologian and policy strategist he is, he is way above me and the likes of me.

Perhaps I didn't understand what he was getting at. Or perhaps, as happens with learned theorists who have the tremendous capacity, as Stuart does, to look into the future, he is way ahead of his time.

It is just that I did not recognize in what he said as being Catholic or Orthodox as I myself understand the faith of these two Apostolic Churches.

Stuart must be the life of any party, to be sure! You just need to be careful and invite people who participate in this Forum!!

Alex

Hi Ignatius --

"However, even an unfallen human nature is subject to death, albeit an unnatural one"

Now we're getting really metaphysical. :-) Orthodox would say that we became subject to death through Original Sin (Eat of this and you will surely die) -- death was always a possibility, something Adam & Eve could choose, but not something they were subjected to by their nature. They chose death, and thereby subjected all of their descendants to death because we all partake of their fallen nature. Therefore Adam & Eve were not created "subject to" death, but chose death, whereas you and me are born subject to death, regardless of our choosing. Death for us is an ontological part of our being -- not a potentiality as a result of a misuse of our freedom, but an absolute certainty of our nature. That is a big difference.

"Not exactly. I was saying that Christ’s nature had to be unfallen because He was a perfect man, not a perfected man. There is I think a slight albeit important difference."

He is perfect man because human nature became perfect when it was en-hypostasized into the person of the divine Logos.

"Basically, the only problem I have with this position is that, in effect, Christ had to be redeemed Himself. He is fallen and then, through the hypostatic union, made perfect."

I think here we're slicing Christ up into parts too much. The divine-human person Christ was in no need of redemption. The flesh that the pre-existing Word partook of was, however (St. Mary's flesh). At the point of conception in the womb of the Theotokos, that flesh was perfected by the act of its hypostatic union with the pre-existent Word and Son of God. Before that meeting, if you will, that en-hypostasization, that flesh was not Christ, and at that very moment that the flesh became Christ it was perfect. Before the en-hypostasization, there was no divine-human person Christ, and at the moment of en-hypostasization the human flesh of which the eternal Logos partook was sanctified and perfected, so at no point was the divine-human person of Christ subject to death or in need of redemption. The material flesh of which He partook was, however, and was redeemed through its hypostatic union with the pre-eternal Word but the critical point is that before that en-hypostasization, the flesh was not Christ, and so the fact that the flesh was in need of redemption does not subject the person of Christ to that need, for it is precisely through the hypostatic union with the pre-eternal Word that the flesh becomes perfect and that the divine-human person of Christ comes to be. In order for your problem to be a problem, therefore, the divine-human person of Christ (as compared with the pre-eternal Logos) must have existed before the en-hypostasization, because only then would the divine-human person be in need of redemption. I think, therefore, that your problem is not a real one.

Brendan


[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 05-16-2001).]

>>>Dustin responds: In my opinion, both Catholics and Orthodox have formed their opinions about the issue, and will settle it once and for all
at the 8th council.<<<

Or, as the Jews say, "When Messiah comes".

"Or, as the Jews say, "When Messiah comes"."

Of course, that would have the added advantage of effectively mooting the Primacy/Supremacy issue, wouldn't it?

Brendan

>>"Basically, the only problem I have with this position is that, in effect, Christ had to be redeemed Himself. He is fallen and then, through the hypostatic union, made perfect."<<

>I think here we're slicing Christ up into parts too much.<

??? Not in my position, I think. I am decidedly NOT dividing Christ. That’s why I am having trouble with your position. Part of Christ can’t be redeemed and another part of Him not need redemption. Can it? Seriously, this is stumping me. When we speak of redemtion in regards to man we are speaking of not only natures, but persons as well.

>The divine-human person Christ was in no need of redemption.<

Exactly.

>The flesh that the pre-existing Word partook of was, however (St. Mary's flesh). At the point of conception in the womb of the Theotokos, that flesh was perfected by the act of its hypostatic union with the pre-existent Word and Son of God.<

Man, here’s where I am having problems understanding your position.

For a moment let’s leave aside the question of whether or not the human nature Christ assumed was fallen.

Your position is that at some point there was a human nature that was not united to a person? I guess I don’t see how this is possible. While Christ is certainly a Divine Person His human nature has never existed apart from His Divine Nature. To say otherwise borders on Nestorianism.

>Before that meeting, if you will, that en-hypostasization, that flesh was not Christ, and at that very moment that the flesh became Christ it was perfect.<

I’ll agree to this if you add the caveat that before en-hypostasization the flesh didn’t exist .

Seriously, what’s a human nature without a human person? Non-existant.

At least when I say that Our Lady had an unfallen nature I am not talking about something purely hypothetical. There were people with unfallen natures, after all. But there has never been a human nature without a person, let alone any kind of person (human, angelic, or Divine) without a nature.

>Before the en-hypostasization, there was no divine-human person Christ, and at the moment of en-hypostasization the human flesh of which the eternal Logos partook was sanctified and perfected, so at no point was the divine-human person of Christ subject to death or in need of
redemption.<

Once again, I’d agree with you if you also held that the human nature of Christ never existed apart from the hypostatic union

Is this really the Orthodox position? How widely held is it? It just strikes me as really odd.

>The material flesh of which He partook was, however, and was redeemed through
its hypostatic union with the pre-eternal Word but the critical point is that before that en-hypostasization, the flesh was not Christ, and so the fact that the flesh was in need of redemption does not subject the person of Christ to that need, for it is precisely through the hypostatic union with the pre-eternal Word that the flesh becomes perfect and that the divine-human person of Christ comes to be.<

Well, at least my position is easier to understand than yours is !

>In order for your problem to be a problem, therefore, the divine-human person of Christ (as compared with the pre-eternal Logos) must have existed before the en-hypostasization, because only then would the divine-human person be in need of redemption. I think, therefore, that your problem is not a real one.<

Yes, this is true if there is any possible way for a human nature to exist for a period of time with no person. Which it’s not (at least as far as I can see).

I ask you again; what’s a nature without a person? A rock? A tree? A dog? Certainly not human.

"Your position is that at some point there was a human nature that was not united to a person? I guess I don’t see how this is possible. While Christ is certainly a Divine Person His human nature has never existed apart from His Divine Nature. To say otherwise borders on Nestorianism."

Not a human nature, but a human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature. The flesh that the Word partook of when He was incarnated in the womb of the Theotokos existed before the Incarnation, right? That flesh was St. Mary's flesh. That flesh was in need of redemption, and was redeemed simultaneously upon the hypostatic union with the divine nature of the pre-eternal Logos -- so at no time did the divine-human person *Christ* have a human nature that was in need of redemption. Does that make things clearer?

"I’ll agree to this if you add the caveat that before en-hypostasization the flesh didn’t exist"

No, the flesh exists -- it's Mary's flesh, not Christ's (yet). The human-divine person of Jesus Christ is born "of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" -- the humanity of the divine-human person of Christ comes from the Virgin Mary -- that humanity, coming as it does from a post-Fall human being, is in need of redemption, and experiences that redemption simultaneously at the time of the en-hypostasization (or Incarnation). At no time at which there is a union between humanity and divinity in Christ is Christ's humanity unredeemed.

"Once again, I’d agree with you if you also held that the human nature of Christ never existed apart from the hypostatic union"

Yes, it wasn't Christ's human nature before the en-hypostisization. The Logos partook of Mary's human nature and, in the Holy Spirit, en-hypostasized it in the Incarnation, simultaneously redeeming it and making it perfect.

"Is this really the Orthodox position? How widely held is it? It just strikes me as really odd."

Most people don't delve into these mysteries at all. Remember this came up as an offshoot to our discussion of the Immaculate Conception, because we found that issue related to broader issues about nature, the fall, Original Sin, etc. Having said that, the concept of Christ having assumed our total nature, including the fallen nature, is written in mainstream works like "The Orthodox Way" (as you can see above) and is fully supported by our hymnography for the Feast of Christmas (which, in Orthodoxy, forms a part of Holy Tradition).

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Rev.Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk uses the term "Inhominization" of the Divine Logos.

I like that term. Do you?

And while I don't mean to get between you and Ignatius (the two of you are of a similar age, no? ), did you get a chance to see if you agree with what this simple person had to say about the Immaculate Conception in my last post?

If so, am I still on the Orthodox hopefuls list?

Isn't it a great day?


Alex

Dear Brendan,

Your point on St Mary's flesh calls to mind the controversy with Eutyches who was being condemned for monophysitism.

Eutyches did concede, to everyone's surprise that he was willing to agree that Christ took His Mother's flesh saying that His Mother possessed the highest degree of holiness. He refused to concede, however, that Christ took "our" flesh.

If you had been around then, you could have probably kept Eutyches in the Church!

Alex