Mary in the Eucharist / Godhead

Faith Romancer

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Location
USA
I once heard a Roman apologist say that Collyridianism was only condemned for certain aspects of Marian devotion and worship. This was in regards to a theory he had that since the church reveals or elaborates doctrine over time, there could be the revelation that Mary is part of the trinity, and savior too because when we eat the body of Jesus in the eucharist, we also eat the body of Mary, since Jesus' body still has her in it genetically. He said that this was no different from the fact that the Old Testament was vague about the Trinity but that the New Testament revealed Christ more explicitly and showed how he was present in some form in the workings of old testament events. So we would discover that Mary was there the whole time as part of the godhead. Therefore, the idea that some things about worshipping Mary were not acceptable doesn't mean there isn't room for other reasons that are, and if the church was backed by enough miracles as well as ex-cathedra statements affirming it, then it would justify that apologist believing it, and he would be glad to worship her, he said. He also suggests that the Catechism's claim that public revelation is ended is just an assumption that could be challenged or changed if there were enough signs at work that there should be new radical dogmas of this sort.

I also need to add that this person claimed that Wisdom is usually always associated with something related to the trinity such as the son or holy spirit, and is mentioned as being eternal and pre-existing the world. The deuterocanon books of Wisdom and Sirach are cited to support this theory.

Sirach 24 is used to teach the idea that we eat of Mary:
19 Come unto me, all ye that be desirous of me, and fill yourselves with my fruits.
20 For my memorial is sweeter than honey, and mine inheritance than the honeycomb.
21 They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty.


This is because it's believed to be about the Virgin Mary, but it also says she existed before the world was formed.

In Wisdom 7 it says:
25 For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.
26 For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.


Many see the first passage as referring to the sinless Mary. However, the latter which is possibly alluded to in Hebrews 3 ("Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power...") conflates this with Jesus Christ, as do other New Testament passages that he is the Wisdom of God. Yet because these things are usually conflated with eternal pre-existence and members of the godhead, and since Mary is seen as being referenced in them, it means she is part of the trinity.

Lastly, I was told that Maria in Latin means sea/ocean which is also used to describe the Virgin Mary in Sirach 24. The connection between the Hebrew name and it's Latin meaning was meant to imply that only the Roman church had a special favor for Mary. The idea of the holy spirit moving over the waters during creation is meant to allude to the conception of Christ in Mary's womb, but as he said, this special connection only exists in the Latin language and is used to defend the Roman Church as being special.
 
Last edited:

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Pretty blasphemous stuff. Roman obsession with doctrinal "development" is the root of all their heresies.
 

brlon

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
80
Reaction score
12
Points
8
Location
UK
The fourth century bishop of Salamis (Cyprus) Saint Epiphanius appears to be the only extant ancient source of information regarding the Kollyridians, having included them in his “Panarion” (a compendium of heresies). Many scholars are sceptical that the sect ever actually existed. The concepts of Kollyridianism are incompatible with Christianity.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Age
56
Location
USA
Such gross misunderstanding of the Theotokos seems to provide rationale to the claim made by the “prophet” of the religion of submission that Christians allegedly worship the Mother of God as the “4th person” of the Trinity.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
I'm not really shocked. I think the ex-cathedra Roman dogma of Immaculate Conception [which incidentally Aquinas rejected, which would make him a heretic to the Roman church for rejecting ex-cathedra Papal dogma] is either meaningless, or much worse, it makes Mary [and Jesus] to be another kind of superior human being, which would go into what your Roman apologist friend is putting forward. The mindset is already there
 

Faith Romancer

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Location
USA
That and the rather confusing devotions and claims propagated by Luguori saying Mary holds back the wrath of God, which was one of the messages spoken at Fatima.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
That and the rather confusing devotions and claims propagated by Luguori saying Mary holds back the wrath of God, which was one of the messages spoken at Fatima.
A. In the Orthodox Church, we say that Ancestral Sin consists in inheritance of corruption and mortality. Adam cut himself off from God so that human nature was severed from participation in Holiness and Life, and as a consequence he passed down a corrupt and mortal human nature to all of us

For us, Mary and also Christ inherited this same corrupt and mortal human nature, the difference being in Christ, His human nature had participated in Divine Properties from the Incarnation, by Hypostatic Union in His Person


B. However, in the West they say that Original Sin consists in inheritance/contracting of guilt, besides corruption and mortality, so that guilt inheres in human nature and was passed down through carnal propagation

But since Christ was sinless, and yet He took flesh from Mary, they had to make Mary's flesh free from the stain of original guilt. This is Immaculate Conception

However, by so saying, they in effect divide mankind into two categories: human nature stained by original guilt [rest of us], and human nature unstained by original guilt [Mary and Jesus]. In effect Christ did incarnate, but He would no longer be co-essential with us according to humanity, for He didn't take our human nature [stained by original guilt], but Mary's human nature [unstained by original guilt]. It became a token incarnation that saved nobody, since Mary is sinless, and 'what is not assumed is not healed'

There is the additional problem when we take inheritance of corruption and mortality into account. This would imply that Mary [and Jesus] was born in a state of incorruption and immortality [albeit by grace]. This, I think, lies at the root of the Dogma of Assumption, but which nevertheless has never bolded to say that Mary didn't die before being assumed to Heaven, but does imply it


At this point, in addition to what your Papal apologist friend has said, and the state of Mariology in the Latin church, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they were to institute a female sacerdotal order for Marian devotion. Technically there seems to be nothing that would prevent this
 

Faith Romancer

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Location
USA
Faith Romancer, this post copies text from an unattributed source, and I have a strong suspicion that source would be another forum. Neither is permitted, and future infractions will be met with points. Thanks. --Ainnir
This is interesting, but what do you say in response to this comment from a Roman Catholic:

Orthodox Christians have a problem with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, not the substance. They agree that Mary was sinless. A few individuals might deviate from this, but that's the exception.

The problem comes from different understandings of original sin which are both valid. It actually is an issue with Eastern Catholics as well.

In the West, our understanding is based on a juridical understanding of Justification based on St. Augustine and then further developed by other theologians.

In the East, the Cappadocian Fathers, understood original sin as being original death. Meaning that when we are born, we are spiritually dead because of the fall of Adam so our Western definition of the Immaculate Conception doesn't fit in that paradigm. We say that Mary was preserved from original sin by the future merits of Christ.

In their paradigm, we don't inherit original sin. We are simply born spiritually dead.

Do you see the problem?

Also, in the West, we are rational thinkers. We are always looking to define things based on the rational questions we ask. We want to know how this work, how does that work. In the East, they just accept the paradoxes and enter in to the Mysteries.

We must understand, that these are all paradigms seeking to explain a mystery. At times they seem to be incompatible, but in substance they are not. We just think differently than one another and we need to remember that the theology we develop is based on the questions we ask.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
For us Mary and Christ inherited Ancestral Sin, because Mary received the same human nature from her parents as the rest of us. She is one of us, and thus Christ Who took flesh from her is also co-essential with us in humanity. He is also one of us according to the flesh

Mary was sinless [and continues to be sinless], yes. What this means is that she has never committed any personal sin. She is free from blame and guilt. But she inherited Ancestral Sin = corruption and mortality from Adam, not guilt. Corruption and mortality pertain to nature [and all mankind has been corrupt and mortal], but guilt pertains to the person, since only a person can commit sin [and thus Mary and Christ have always been free from guilt]

Our understanding of Original Sin [Ancestral Sin] is different from theirs, which results in different consequences
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Actually, the original sin consists of the inheritance of the guilt of Adam, except of the corruction and mortality, is an Orthodox teaching. The claim that it is not, arose in the beginning of the 20th century among the Orthodox modernists. Orthodox modernism is comparible with, for example, the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church with the only difference that it is not conciliarly established. The rejection that we inherit also the guilt of Adam and the corruptive nature, is a part of the Pelagian heresy and is condemned at the Council of Carthage (419) which was affirmed at the Council of Trullo (692), Canon 2. Pelagianism was also condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council (431), in Ephesus, together with Nestorianism. That the teaching that we inherit the guilt for Adam’s sin, is not invented by St.Augustine which can be most clearly seen from the the practice of the baptism of infants which is an apostolic tradition. Baptism is for the true remission of sins. If we do not inherit Adam’s guilt for his sin but only the corruption of the human nature after his fall, then since the infants do not have any personal sins, the form of the baptism for the remission of sins would be false regarding the infants, i.e. the baptism of the infants would not be truly for the remission of sins. The Pelagian teaching that the form of the baptism for true remission of sins regarding the infatns, is false, is rejected by the Local Council, of Carthage (419 CE), Canon 110. (Greek 112):

,,Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned (Romans 5:12), than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.‘‘ So it is not St.Augustine who introduced the teaching of our inherited guilt for Adam’s sin. The passing of death upon all men is a result of the sinning of all, therefore the sinning of all does not refer to personal sins because that way the sinning with personal sins would be the reason for the death of all which would contradict the first part of the verse according to which all men inherit mortality from Adam. Also, as since the creation of men millions of people have died as infants, i.e. without having committed any personal sins at all, it cannot be that all humans without exception commit personal sins. Therefore, that all humans have sinned (5:12) is possible only if they have sinned in Adam.

All humans sinned in Adam when he sinned because all humanity was contained in Adam when he fell as it is explained in Question 24, Part 1 - Of Faith, and its answer, in the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church written by St.Peter Moguila in 1645, approved by the Patriarchates of Constantinopole, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch and affirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) as the standard cathehism of the Orthodox Church (faithfully translated from the originals (London, 1762 edition)), p.30-37:,,Question XXIV:,,Whether all man are liable for the sin of Adam?

Answer. As all mankind, during the state of innocence, was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin. Wherefore mankind is become, not only subject unto sin, but also on account of sin, unto punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced by God, was (Gen. ii. 17.) ,,In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die.‘‘ And to this the Apostle alludes (Rom. v. 12.) ,,Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men sinned.‘‘ So that we are conceived into our mother’s womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy Psalmist [Psal. li. 7.] ,,Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.‘‘ This is called parental or original sin; first, because that, before this, man was free from all sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whole temptation this parental sin sprung up in man; and Adam becoming guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin, because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature.‘‘ (https://books.google.bg/books?id=wEdWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA12&hl=bg&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false). Death is a merit of the original sin:,,That Adam was not created by God subject to death

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.“ (Council of Carhtage (419, Canon 109 (Greek 111)). Also death is a penalty for Adam’s sin:,,…You see, since this wicked beast saw that the first-formed human being was created immortal, by his characteristicwickedness he led him on to disobedience of the command and in that way caused him to bring on himself the penalty of death. So envy caused deception, deception caused disobedience, and disobedience caused death. Hence the text says “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world.“ (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24). …‘‘ (St.John Chrysostom, Homily 46 on the Book of Genesis). If we were not guilty for the original sin, we would not we be punished with Adam’s sin because that would be unjust towards us.

All men were in Adam when he fell, wherefore we all fell with him when he fell. We were in Adam when he fell, wherefore we are guilty for his sin, then as guilt pertains to person, we were in Adam’s human person/hypostasis with our human persons/hypsotases. The human hypostasis of the Most Holy Virgin Mary was in the human hypostasis of Adam, wherefore she also bears the guilt for Adam’s sin and the depravity of nature but she was cleansed of the original sin and also had no personal sins. But Christ was not in the human hypostasis of Adam because Christ’s humanity does not have its own, human hypostasis/person but took the Hypostasis/Person of the Word as its own hypostasis. If He bore the guilt for Adam;s sin and so had a nature that was inclined to sin, that would mean that He was in Adam’s hypostasis with a human’s hypostasis, i.e. that His humanity has its own hypostasis different from the Hypostasis of the Word. That would be Nestorianism. It is not a coincidence that Theodore of Mopsuestia who was the teacher of Nestorius, taught that Christ was inclined to sin according to His humanity and since Christ Who is inclined to sin by divinity, cannot be inclined to sin and not inclined to sin at the same time, eventually led Theodore to dividing the One Christ into two persons – divine and human. This is rejected in the Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople (553), 12th anathema:
,,If 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, and separated little by little above that which is inferior, and become better by the progress in good works and irreproachable in his manner of life, …and that he has become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin. ...“

That Christ’s human nature was not depraved like ours, does not mean that He was not consubstantial with us according to his humanity because the depravity of nature which is the inclination of our will to evil rather than good, is a condition of nature and not a property of nature. This is because if it was a property of the fallen nature, that would mean that being a property of the created human nature, the inclination to evil is created which would mean evil is created. But evil is neither created, nor uncreated as St.Basil the Great says:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue,developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ (Homily 2,4, Fathers of the Church, Nine Homilies on the Hexaemron, Apostle Arne Horn, p.20). Therefore, as evil is neither created, nor uncreated, the inclination of our fallen nature to evil rather than good, is not a created property of the created human nature after the fall. So, even though Christ does not bear the guilt for Adam’s sin and has not inherited a depraved nature from Adam, according to His human nature Christ is consubstatial with us.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Nope. We inherit a corrupt and mortal human nature from Adam. Corruption and mortality pertain to nature, not to person. But we do not inherit guilt from Adam, for guilt pertains to person, not nature. The Scripture says explicitly, each man shall die for his own sins

Christ took our corrupt and mortal nature. He is the same as all of us in all things, including in taking corrupt and mortal nature. Except that He has never committed any sin
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Your idea that 'we all exist in Adam when he fell' = this is condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod as the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. If you had said that we were all in Adam in human nature, this would be acceptable. But you are saying that we existed as hypostases in Adam

Condition of nature = what does this mean as distinct from property of nature? Christ was found in the form of a servant and was obedient even unto death. He took our condition and all the properties of our nature. But unlike us, He never committed any sin at all

Certainly Adam wasn't created mortal. He incurred corruption and mortality by sinning, namely turning away from the Holy and Living God, thus sundering himself from participation in Holiness and Life

That's exactly what I said, Original [Ancestral Sin] is depravation [corruption] of nature. It does not entail inheritance of guilt

Certainly infants must be baptized, since all infants are born in a state of corruption and mortality

We do not inherit guilt. We inherit corruption and mortality, and likewise with Mary and Christ
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
I find your explanation of Christ not having a human hypostasis and thus exempt from inherited guilt interesting. However it is meaningless. All human beings are born innocent. Corrupt and mortal, yes, but innocent of any personal sin

Furthermore, even supposing that we existed as hypostases in Adam [again, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod condemned the notion of the pre-existence of souls], it was still Adam's hypostasis that committed transgression. Just because you're there when someone commits murder, doesn't mean that you also commit murder

Also, the topic of this thread reminds me of a heresy that has been condemned by the Orthodox Church, namely Sophianism
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
I apologize that my commens are long. I am trying to summarize all I want to say in one comment. Yes, the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemns the pre-existence of souls. Certainly I did not mean that we literally pre-existed as souls in the soul of Adam when I said that our hypostases were in Adam's hypostasis. I said it in reference to all humanity being contained in Adam when he fell in relation to what is said in the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church written by St.Peter Moguila in 1645 and approved by the Patriarchates of Constantinopole, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch and affirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) - that all mankind was in Adam during the state of innocence, wherefore we are liable for Adam's sin:,,,,Whether all man are liable for the sin of Adam? Answer. As all mankind, during the state of innocence, was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin. ...“ It is strange that you referred to the Fifth Council but ignored the fact that the same Council rejects that Christ, although He never sinned, had a depraved human nanture (the quoted 12th anathema).

Quote:''Condition of nature = what does this mean as distinct from property of nature? Christ was found in the form of a servant and was obedient even unto death. He took our condition and all the properties of our nature. But unlike us, He never committed any sin at all.'' The depravity of our nature refers to the inclination of our will to evil rather than good:,,Question 23.What was the state of innocence of man, or purity and freedom from sin? Answer. ...And presently, losing his reason and understanding, his will became prone to evil, rather than good. Thus the state of innocence and integrity, by man’s tasting of evil, became a state of sin; and man, who before was perfect, debased so low, that now he may well cry out with David (Psalm. 22. 6.) ,,I am a worm, and no man‘‘. (Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church, p.37). If our inclination to evil rather than good is a property of our created nature, then it would be created which would mean that God creates the men after Adam inclined to evil which would be blasphemous because it would imply that He is the reason for our inclination to sin. As St.Basil who was quoted, says:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ Yes, by sinning, Adam sundered himself from participation in holiness as, for example, St.Irenaeus says;,,...Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body. …“. (Against heresies, Book 3.23). The inclination to sin is related to that lack of sanctity that we inherit from Adam and is not a created property of nature because if it was a created property, it would be God Who is the reason for our sinfulness which would be blasphemous.

Quote:''Certainly infants must be baptized, since all infants are born in a state of corruption and mortality.'' But if they are not also remitted of the original sin, then since they do not have any perosnal sins, the form of baptism for the remission of sins regarding the infants, would be false. That it would be false, is condemned at the Council of Carthage in the quoted Canon 110 which was one of the canons against Pelagius:,,Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned (Romans 5:12), than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.'' The Canons from 108 to 116 at the Council of Carthage are dedicated to Pelagianism. As it was said, Pelagisnism was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council (431) together with Nestorianism.

That local council of Carthage was ratified at the Qunisext Ecumenical Council (692), Canon 2: ,,But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers... In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carhtage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. ...''. The Ecumenical Councils are God-inspired and thus infallible:,,Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that has found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient.’’ (Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon I).
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
1. Anathema XII of Ecumenical Synod V: Christ assumed a corrupt and mortal human nature from Mary, but in Hypostatic Union, at the moment of His Incarnation, occured mutual communication of properties, so that His human nature partook in Divine Nature = this has nothing to do with Anathema XII of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod

2. Guilt in person and not nature: We are liable of corruption and mortality, because what became corrupt and mortal was Adam's human nature, which he passed down to all of us. Guilt inheres to person, not to nature

3. Condition of human nature: Yes. Christ assumed the condition of corruption and mortality from Mary. But guilt is a condition of person, not of nature. It is the person, not the nature, that is the agent of sin, which brings guilt

4. Baptism: Baptism remits personal sins as well as being the putting off of the old man [corrupt and mortal human nature] and the putting on of the New Man [Incorrupt and Immortal Deified nature by participation by Grace in Jesus Christ]. But infants are not born guilty. What they receive in Holy Baptism is the putting off of the old man and putting on of the New Man

5. Synod of Carthage: Penalty of Death upon human nature, but the guilt belongs to the person of Adam. It's like a father who commits a crime and gets his house confiscated. He is the only one who's guilty, but his whole household becomes involved in the consequence

If you insist that mankind inherits guilt from Adam, therefore:
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?
B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?
C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Age
56
Location
USA
It also says within Ezekiel 18 that a son who does good things does not bear the “iniquity” (KJV) of a father who does bad things ( & vice versa). The only thing they can automatically share re sin is mortality.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Nope. We inherit a corrupt and mortal human nature from Adam. Corruption and mortality pertain to nature, not to person. But we do not inherit guilt from Adam, for guilt pertains to person, not nature. The Scripture says explicitly, each man shall die for his own sins

Christ took our corrupt and mortal nature. He is the same as all of us in all things, including in taking corrupt and mortal nature. Except that He has never committed any sin
This is actually wrong. Christ most certainly didn't have ancestral sin. Ancestral sin is transferred through generation. Since Christ wasn't born the traditional way through generation he was as Adam was born. Free from sin. He had a human nature like Adam had before the fall.
Yes, we don't inherit guilt, but that is where it all ends. Our nature is a byproduct of sin and our members are sinful as the bible and the canons state. If what you state was true, you would be denying a fall ever occurred and that Christ had sin. When no sin was in him.
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Quote:,,Anathema XII of Ecumenical Synod V: Christ assumed a corrupt and mortal nature from Mary, but in Hypostatic Union, at the moment of His Incarnation, occurred mutual communication of properties, so that His nature partook in Divine nature = this has nothing to do with Anathema XII of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.'' What you say - that the human nature that Christ assumed was corrupt and mortal from the Holy Virgin Mary but at the moment of the Hypostatic Union there occurred a mutual commmunication of properties, so that his human nature partook in Divine Nature, implies that there is a time gap between the conception of the human nature and the Hypostatic Union because the way you have put it, it sounds as if at first His human nature was corrupt but then, at the moment of the Hypostatic Union it ceased to be corrupt. That way it follows that the conception of the human nature of Christ preceded the Hypostatic Union of the two natures which divides the One Person of Christ into two persons - the human person that was first created and the Divine Person that united Himself with the already created human person but that is Nestorianism because if the human nature of Christ was created before the Hypostatic Union, it would have its own, human hypostatis before coming to subsist in the Hypostasis of the Word in the Hypostatic Union. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church there was not a time gap between the supernatural conception of Christ's human nature and it union with the divine nature in the Hypostatic Union. It is not a coincidence that Theodore of Mopsuestia was the teacher of Nestorius who divided Christ into two persons. Nestorius considered Christ's human nature to be inclined to sin, although he did not teach that Christ committed a sin but that way he was led to a confusion as to how the sinful human nature of Christ could have been united with His divine nature in the Hypostatic union and he conclded that it is impossible, and eventually divided the one Christ in two persons. Thus, the twelfth anathema does not refer to Christ's human nature before the Hypostatic union because that would mean that the anathema affirms Nestorianism. It refers to Christ's human nature from the Hypostatic Union on because His humanity did not exist prior to the Hypostatic Union. So His human nature was never corrupt, i.e. inclined to sin.
 
Last edited:

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
It must be added that that Christ's human nature was never corrupt, i.e inclined to sin, does not mean that the human nature of the Holy Virgin Mary from whom He took His human nature, was immaculately conceived, i.e. that she was conceived without the ancestral sin and did not have depravity of nature since her conception as the Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception states. She was freed from the ancestral sin when the Holy Spirit descended upon her and she conceived supernaturally the Son of God by the Holy Spirit.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
This is actually wrong. Christ most certainly didn't have ancestral sin. Ancestral sin is transferred through generation. Since Christ wasn't born the traditional way through generation he was as Adam was born. Free from sin. He had a human nature like Adam had before the fall.
Yes, we don't inherit guilt, but that is where it all ends. Our nature is a byproduct of sin and our members are sinful as the bible and the canons state. If what you state was true, you would be denying a fall ever occurred and that Christ had sin. When no sin was in him.
Tzimis
Did Christ take human nature from His Mother or not? Did Mary have a corrupt and mortal human nature or not? What is not assumed is not healed. Christ took our corrupt and mortal human nature to heal it

Yasen
There is no gap
. The Incarnation is His Conception. At the moment of His Conception, namely at His Incarnation, occurred Communication Idiomatum in His Person. But He indeed took our corrupt and mortal nature and healed it in the Incarnation

Now go ahead and answer my questions:
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?
B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?
C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Another thing to note is that Vatican II actually did not reject the notion of inheritance of guilt. What the Latin catechism is saying is that Original Sin does not entail inheritance of personal sin... it is not personal but contracted sin... = we all contract Adam's guilt = we did not personally commit it [Adam did], but we have contracted it
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Tzimis
Did Christ take human nature from His Mother or not? Did Mary have a corrupt and mortal human nature or not? What is not assumed is not healed. Christ took our corrupt and mortal human nature to heal it

Yasen
There is no gap
. The Incarnation is His Conception. At the moment of His Conception, namely at His Incarnation, occurred Communication Idiomatum in His Person. But He indeed took our corrupt and mortal nature and healed it in the Incarnation

Now go ahead and answer my questions:
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?
B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?
C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?
Quote:,, Did Christ take human nature from His Mother or not? Did Mary have a corrupt and mortal human nature or not? What is not assumed is not healed. Christ took our corrupt and mortal human nature to heal it.”

Yes, He took a human nature from her but she was purified when the Holy descended upon her and immediately before the Conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit:

,,…So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. …“ (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2. Concerning the manner in which the Word was conceived, and concerning His divine incarnation). She was purified immediately before the Incarnation, wherefore the human nature that Christ took from the Holy Virgin Mary, was not corrupt, i.e. inclined to sin. For the same reason – that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was purified just before the Incarnation, His mortality also was not inherited from her human nature because mortality is a merit of the Adam’s sin (Canon 109, Council of Carthage) and since the Holy Virgin Mary was purified of the ancestral sin just before the Incarnation, the mortality of Christ’s human nature was not an inherited consequence of the inherited ancestral sin by Him because He did not inherit that sin. He was indeed mortal by his nature and not like the non-Chalcedonian Aphtartodocetae thought – that He was corporally incorruptible by His human nature but took the death on the Cross only because He willed to die. Christ was naturally mortal by His human nature but not as a result of the inherited ancestral sin like it is with us because unlike us He did not inherit it. He was mortal in order to undergo death for our sins, in order to die on the Cross for our sins. So, yes – His humanity was mortal but not corrupt, i.e. not inclined to sin.

Quote:,,What is not assumed is not healed.”

When St.Gregory Nazianzus says that what Christ has not assumed, He has not healed, St.Gregory does not mean that Jesus had to take a corrupt nature:,,If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.'' (Letter 101, to Cledonius). Here, when St.Gregory says that which Christ has not assumed, has not healed, he refutes Apollinarianism which rejects that Jesus assumed a human mind which is why St.Gregory says that anyone who has put in Christ as a Man without a human mind, he is bereft of mind. According to Apollinaris, Jesus did not assume a human mind but His Divine Mind substituted the lack of a human mind in His human nature. That way Apollinaris rejected that Christ’s human nature is a full human nature. St.Gregory explains that He assumed a whole human nature in order to save us because it was the whole Adam that fell, not half Adam, so the whole human nature had to be assumed by Christ in order for it to be saved.

Quote:,,Yasen
There is no gap
. The Incarnation is His Conception. At the moment of His Conception, namely at His Incarnation, occurred Communication Idiomatum in His Person. But He indeed took our corrupt and mortal nature and healed it in the Incarnation.“

Yes, I said the same thing:,,According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church there was not a time gap between the supernatural conception of Christ's human nature and its union with the divine nature in the Hypostatic Union.” But the human nature that He took from Mary was not corrupt as it was shown above. (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2).
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Quote:,, Did Christ take human nature from His Mother or not? Did Mary have a corrupt and mortal human nature or not? What is not assumed is not healed. Christ took our corrupt and mortal human nature to heal it.”

Yes, He took a human nature from her but she was purified when the Holy descended upon her and immediately before the Conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit:

,,…So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. …“ (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2. Concerning the manner in which the Word was conceived, and concerning His divine incarnation). She was purified immediately before the Incarnation, wherefore the human nature that Christ took from the Holy Virgin Mary, was not corrupt, i.e. inclined to sin. For the same reason – that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was purified just before the Incarnation, His mortality also was not inherited from her human nature because mortality is a merit of the Adam’s sin (Canon 109, Council of Carthage) and since the Holy Virgin Mary was purified of the ancestral sin just before the Incarnation, the mortality of Christ’s human nature was not an inherited consequence of the inherited ancestral sin by Him because He did not inherit that sin. He was indeed mortal by his nature and not like the non-Chalcedonian Aphtartodocetae thought – that He was corporally incorruptible by His human nature but took the death on the Cross only because He willed to die. Christ was naturally mortal by His human nature but not as a result of the inherited ancestral sin like it is with us because unlike us He did not inherit it. He was mortal in order to undergo death for our sins, in order to die on the Cross for our sins. So, yes – His humanity was mortal but not corrupt, i.e. not inclined to sin.

Quote:,,What is not assumed is not healed.”

When St.Gregory Nazianzus says that what Christ has not assumed, He has not healed, St.Gregory does not mean that Jesus had to take a corrupt nature:,,If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.'' (Letter 101, to Cledonius). Here, when St.Gregory says that which Christ has not assumed, has not healed, he refutes Apollinarianism which rejects that Jesus assumed a human mind which is why St.Gregory says that anyone who has put in Christ as a Man without a human mind, he is bereft of mind. According to Apollinaris, Jesus did not assume a human mind but His Divine Mind substituted the lack of a human mind in His human nature. That way Apollinaris rejected that Christ’s human nature is a full human nature. St.Gregory explains that He assumed a whole human nature in order to save us because it was the whole Adam that fell, not half Adam, so the whole human nature had to be assumed by Christ in order for it to be saved.

Quote:,,Yasen
There is no gap
. The Incarnation is His Conception. At the moment of His Conception, namely at His Incarnation, occurred Communication Idiomatum in His Person. But He indeed took our corrupt and mortal nature and healed it in the Incarnation.“

Yes, I said the same thing:,,According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church there was not a time gap between the supernatural conception of Christ's human nature and its union with the divine nature in the Hypostatic Union.” But the human nature that He took from Mary was not corrupt as it was shown above. (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2).
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?
B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?
C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Another thing to note is that Vatican II actually did not reject the notion of inheritance of guilt. What the Latin catechism is saying is that Original Sin does not entail inheritance of personal sin... it is not personal but contracted sin... = we all contract Adam's guilt = we did not personally commit it [Adam did], but we have contracted it
Quote:,,Now go ahead and answer my questions:
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?...’’
Quote:,,Another thing to note is that Vatican II actually did not reject the notion of inheritance of guilt. What the Latin catechism is saying is that Original Sin does not entail inheritance of personal sin... it is not personal but contracted sin... = we all contract Adam's guilt = we did not personally commit it [Adam did], but we have contracted it.’’

This is in accordance with what St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says in his Letter 64:5:"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another". The sins that are forgiven the infants in the baptism for the remission of sins, are not their own, personal sins but the sins of another meaning the sin of Adam, therefore although we (all humans) have not committed it personally, it is ascribed to us, i.e. the guilt for it because otherwise the infants would not be remitted of it in the baptism for the remission of sins.

Quote:,,B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?’’

She was conceived with the ancestral sin like all humans but unlike us who are remitted of it in the baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, she was cleansed by it when the Holy Spirit descended upon her and immediately before the Incarnation as St.Gregory explains in the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2 a part of which was quoted above.

,,C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?’’ No, of course not. I am not saying that. St.Gregory Nazianzen says in Oration 40 – the Oration on Holy Baptism, that those who have not received baptism on account of infancy or involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, shall be neither glorified, nor punished:

XXIII. ,,And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?‘‘. St.Gregory Nazianzen). He does not say that they will be saved but that they will be neither punished, nor glorified. If the guilt for the original sin was not ascribed to them, they would be glorified.

Revelation 21:27 says:,,And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.'' (KJV). The sixth-century Church Father Apringius has written a Tractate on Revelation. He interprets Revelation 21:27 in the following way:,,It is true that in the congregation of saints there enters not the one who either did not want to be cleansed of the former sin and the guilt of the ancestors, or, having defiled himself after the cleansing, did not want to wash himself with the bath of humbleness and the flow of tears. Indeed, an abomination is created by a Jew or a heretic who falsely honors God. It is said only about those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life, i.e. those who have embraced the true faith and firm hope.‘‘

In the Life of St. Basil the New (834-944) by Gregory the Monk, as a part of the Vision of Gregory the Monk, a disciple of our Holy and the God-bearing Father Basil the New of Constantinople, of the Last Judgment that was revealed to him as a result of him coming to think that the Jews also believed in the right way like the Orthodox Christians, there is said the following regarding the infants who have died unbaptized:,,...Infants not enlightened with Holy Baptism

Then the Lord commanded that those who were blind but walked according to the wave of God, be separated to the left. There was not a seal of evil on them, nor a seal of good. The Lord looked at them, pitying them with meekness. He also looked at their parents, scarily, blaiming them for not endeavouring to enlighten them with the Holy Baptism. And the Lord commanded His holy Angels to bestow upon them a place of rest to the west, so that they could somewhat partake in the enjoyment of eternal life but without being able to see the face of God. They said:
''All-merciful Lord Who own life and death, Thou art blessed and good and merciful, because the Lord of life and death has deprived us of temporary life by His inscrutable judgments, and that is why we ask one thing of You:"Have mercy on us, Lord. '' - And the Lord gave them a little consolation. They were unbaptized infants. They were all the same age. They glorified the goodness of God for His mercy and entered the rest, prepared for them by the Lord.'' ...‘‘ The infants not enlightened with holy baptism, will not enter the kingdom of heaven but they will not suffer torments of hell fire. What was just quoted analogically refers also to the ones who have died unborn and could not be baptized. The only ones who have died unbaptized and for whose salvation the Church prays, are the catechumens that are set to be baptized but die before their baptism.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Sin and guilt are two different subjects Yasen.

Michael: A human nature that has assteral sin can't save mankind. He would be subject to the same fate as ours.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Quote:,,Now go ahead and answer my questions:
A. How does this guilt inhere to each of our person, seeing that guilt does not pertain to nature, but to person?...’’
Quote:,,Another thing to note is that Vatican II actually did not reject the notion of inheritance of guilt. What the Latin catechism is saying is that Original Sin does not entail inheritance of personal sin... it is not personal but contracted sin... = we all contract Adam's guilt = we did not personally commit it [Adam did], but we have contracted it.’’

This is in accordance with what St.Cyprian of Carthage (200-256) says in his Letter 64:5:"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another". The sins that are forgiven the infants in the baptism for the remission of sins, are not their own, personal sins but the sins of another meaning the sin of Adam, therefore although we (all humans) have not committed it personally, it is ascribed to us, i.e. the guilt for it because otherwise the infants would not be remitted of it in the baptism for the remission of sins.

Quote:,,B. Are you saying that the Theotokos was born guilty?’’

She was conceived with the ancestral sin like all humans but unlike us who are remitted of it in the baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity for the remission of sins, she was cleansed by it when the Holy Spirit descended upon her and immediately before the Incarnation as St.Gregory explains in the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2 a part of which was quoted above.

,,C. Are you saying that all departed unbaptized children go to Eternal torment and condemnation?’’ No, of course not. I am not saying that. St.Gregory Nazianzen says in Oration 40 – the Oration on Holy Baptism, that those who have not received baptism on account of infancy or involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, shall be neither glorified, nor punished:

XXIII. ,,And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?‘‘. St.Gregory Nazianzen). He does not say that they will be saved but that they will be neither punished, nor glorified. If the guilt for the original sin was not ascribed to them, they would be glorified.

Revelation 21:27 says:,,And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.'' (KJV). The sixth-century Church Father Apringius has written a Tractate on Revelation. He interprets Revelation 21:27 in the following way:,,It is true that in the congregation of saints there enters not the one who either did not want to be cleansed of the former sin and the guilt of the ancestors, or, having defiled himself after the cleansing, did not want to wash himself with the bath of humbleness and the flow of tears. Indeed, an abomination is created by a Jew or a heretic who falsely honors God. It is said only about those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life, i.e. those who have embraced the true faith and firm hope.‘‘

In the Life of St. Basil the New (834-944) by Gregory the Monk, as a part of the Vision of Gregory the Monk, a disciple of our Holy and the God-bearing Father Basil the New of Constantinople, of the Last Judgment that was revealed to him as a result of him coming to think that the Jews also believed in the right way like the Orthodox Christians, there is said the following regarding the infants who have died unbaptized:,,...Infants not enlightened with Holy Baptism

Then the Lord commanded that those who were blind but walked according to the wave of God, be separated to the left. There was not a seal of evil on them, nor a seal of good. The Lord looked at them, pitying them with meekness. He also looked at their parents, scarily, blaiming them for not endeavouring to enlighten them with the Holy Baptism. And the Lord commanded His holy Angels to bestow upon them a place of rest to the west, so that they could somewhat partake in the enjoyment of eternal life but without being able to see the face of God. They said:
''All-merciful Lord Who own life and death, Thou art blessed and good and merciful, because the Lord of life and death has deprived us of temporary life by His inscrutable judgments, and that is why we ask one thing of You:"Have mercy on us, Lord. '' - And the Lord gave them a little consolation. They were unbaptized infants. They were all the same age. They glorified the goodness of God for His mercy and entered the rest, prepared for them by the Lord.'' ...‘‘ The infants not enlightened with holy baptism, will not enter the kingdom of heaven but they will not suffer torments of hell fire. What was just quoted analogically refers also to the ones who have died unborn and could not be baptized. The only ones who have died unbaptized and for whose salvation the Church prays, are the catechumens that are set to be baptized but die before their baptism.
Interesting. Can you help me out here?

A. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050664.htm
I couldn't find Letter LXIV.V. Can you point me to the location of the quote?

B. https://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
Do you mean the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus? I tried looking it up but there is no Book III Chapter II. Can you help me out with a link?

C. Certainly what Gregory says. But he doesn't say that we inherit guilt from Adam

I still actually haven't got your explanation on how guilt, which is incurred by the person, not nature, since the person is the agent of sin, not nature, can inhere to nature. What is judged is the person, not nature
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Sin and guilt are two different subjects Yasen.

Michael: A human nature that has assteral sin can't save mankind. He would be subject to the same fate as ours.
He assumed Ancestral Sin, but His Incarnation itself was the Healing and Abolishment of this Ancestral Sin. Ancestral Sin in the human nature He assumed was destroyed at the very moment of His Conception

What is not assumed is not healed. He assumed Ancestral Sin and healed it by His Incarnation

He became Man so that we may become God. His Incarnation itself was the Abolishment of Ancestral Sin and Deification
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Interesting. Can you help me out here?

A. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050664.htm
I couldn't find Letter LXIV.V. Can you point me to the location of the quote?

B. https://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
Do you mean the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus? I tried looking it up but there is no Book III Chapter II. Can you help me out with a link?

C. Certainly what Gregory says. But he doesn't say that we inherit guilt from Adam

I still actually haven't got your explanation on how guilt, which is incurred by the person, not nature, since the person is the agent of sin, not nature, can inhere to nature. What is judged is the person, not nature
Excuse me, I have made a mistake with the number of the letter. It is not letter 65.5, it is 58.5. Here is the link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm.

,,Do you mean the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus? I tried looking it up but there is no Book III Chapter II. Can you help me out with a link?'' Yes. This is a link to The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2: Concerning the manner in which the Word was conceived, and concerning His Divine Incarnation: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Excuse me, I have made a mistake with the number of the letter. It is not letter 65.5, it is 58.5. Here is the link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm.

,,Do you mean the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus? I tried looking it up but there is no Book III Chapter II. Can you help me out with a link?'' Yes. This is a link to The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2: Concerning the manner in which the Word was conceived, and concerning His Divine Incarnation: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm
A. Cyprian's Letter LVIII.V: Baptism remits corruption and mortality in putting off the old man of Adam and putting on the new man of Christ. In the case of infants, Cyprian is talking about this remission of corruption and mortality [which will be perfected in the Resurrection of the dead], since infants have no guilt to be remitted of

B. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?


I would still like to hear what you have to say about:
1. Which is the agent of sin? Person or nature?
2. Which is the subject of Judgement? Person or nature?

If you don't mind, let us begin by laying the two points above as the groundwork
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
A. Cyprian's Letter LVIII.V: Baptism remits corruption and mortality in putting off the old man of Adam and putting on the new man of Christ. In the case of infants, Cyprian is talking about this remission of corruption and mortality [which will be perfected in the Resurrection of the dead], since infants have no guilt to be remitted of

B. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?

I would still like to hear what you have to say about:
1. Which is the agent of sin? Person or nature?
2. Which is the subject of Judgement? Person or nature?

If you don't mind, let us begin by laying the two points above as the groundwork
Quote:,,B. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?’’

The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2, was quoted to show that Christ di not take from the Holy Virgin Mary a corrupt nature because she was purified of the ancestral sin inmmediately before the Incarnation:,, ,,…So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. …“

Quote:,,Ancestral Sin in the human nature He assumed was destroyed at the very moment of His Conception.“

But if the human nature He assumed, had the ancestral sin which was destroyed at the very moment of the Conception, that implies that there was a moment in time when his human nature existed before the union of the two nature in the Hypostasis of the Word when the ancestral sin of the humanity was destroyed, wherefore there would be a created human nature before the Hypostatic Union which would mean that the human nature had its own, human hypostasis before the Hypostatic Union. So there would be a Nestorian division of Christ in two persons/hypostases which is impossible because there was not a moment in time between the Conception of the human nature and the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in the Hypostasis of the Word, As it can be seen (The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2), He did not take a corrupt nature, i.e. a nature inclined to sin from the Holy Virgin Mary.
 

Yasen

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Points
3
A. Cyprian's Letter LVIII.V: Baptism remits corruption and mortality in putting off the old man of Adam and putting on the new man of Christ. In the case of infants, Cyprian is talking about this remission of corruption and mortality [which will be perfected in the Resurrection of the dead], since infants have no guilt to be remitted of

B. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?

I would still like to hear what you have to say about:
1. Which is the agent of sin? Person or nature?
2. Which is the subject of Judgement? Person or nature?

If you don't mind, let us begin by laying the two points above as the groundwork
The agent of sins is, of course, the person. As it was said, with his disobedience Adam brought the penalty of death on himself:,,…You see, since this wicked beast saw that the first-formed human being was created immortal, by his characteristicwickedness he led him on to disobedience of the command and in that way caused him to bring on himself the penalty of death. So envy caused deception, deception caused disobedience, and disobedience caused death. Hence the text says “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world.“ (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24). …‘‘ (St.John Chrysostom, Homily 46 on the Book of Genesis). Nature does not exist in an abstract state without subsisting in a person. When the person of Adam brought upon himself the penalty of death, his nature became corrupt and mortal but he is the person whom the penalty was brought upon. But the punishment of death was brought upon all men due to Adam's disobedience, i.e. all persons were punished with death as, for example Blessed Theodoret and St.John Chrysostom say. So the subject of the judgment, i.e. are all persons, the judgment is upon all due to the transgression of Adam:,,16.And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. (Romans 5:16). The munificence of grace, says he, goes beyond the limits of justice, for then, one having sinned, the whole race received punishment, but now, all mankind having been unholy, and transgressors, it has brought, not punishment but, the free gift of life. …18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18). Doubt not, says he, concerning what I have said, while looking to Adam; for if those things be true, as indeed they are true, and when he had sinned the whole race received the sentence of death; it is plain, that the righteousness of the Saviour gains life to all men…“ (Commentary of Blessed Theodoret (393-457) on the Epistle to the Romans, Part 1, Chapter 5). Also St.John Chrysostom says in his Homily 10 on Romans:,,Ver. 18. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

And he insists again upon it, saying, Ver. 19. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous."


What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word "sinners" mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation, if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (filosofias). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater. blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ's sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come.“

Although we have not committed the original sin, we are all punished with the punishment of Adam, so it is ascribed to us like we have done it. Otherwise, if it was not ascribed to us, the form of the baptism of infants for the remission of sins would be false – something which the council of Carthage rejected.
 
Last edited:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Quote:,,B. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?’’

The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2, was quoted to show that Christ di not take from the Holy Virgin Mary a corrupt nature because she was purified of the ancestral sin inmmediately before the Incarnation:,, ,,…So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. …“

Quote:,,Ancestral Sin in the human nature He assumed was destroyed at the very moment of His Conception.“

But if the human nature He assumed, had the ancestral sin which was destroyed at the very moment of the Conception, that implies that there was a moment in time when his human nature existed before the union of the two nature in the Hypostasis of the Word when the ancestral sin of the humanity was destroyed, wherefore there would be a created human nature before the Hypostatic Union which would mean that the human nature had its own, human hypostasis before the Hypostatic Union. So there would be a Nestorian division of Christ in two persons/hypostases which is impossible because there was not a moment in time between the Conception of the human nature and the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in the Hypostasis of the Word, As it can be seen (The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox faith, Book 3, Chapter 2), He did not take a corrupt nature, i.e. a nature inclined to sin from the Holy Virgin Mary.
A. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: It says that Mary was purified. Where does it say here that we inherit guilt from Adam?
B. Communicatio Idiomatum: Errr no Yasen. The Incarnation itself was the Abolishment of Ancestral Sin [by Communicatio Idiomatum] There was no such gap nor moment. And Nestorianism is two persons. Even if there was a gap there would still not be two persons. There were two natures

You are confusing person with nature, which seems to be why you assign guilt to nature instead of to person

C. Thedoret's quotes: Yeah we inherit the penalty/consequence of Adam's sin, namely Death. A father who incurs a debt by gambling leaves the consequence of his gambling to his children, namely the debt. It was the father who gambled, not the children. But the consequence is passed down to them

Why are you quoting Theodoret and Aspringius, both of which are not Church Fathers?
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
He assumed Ancestral Sin, but His Incarnation itself was the Healing and Abolishment of this Ancestral Sin. Ancestral Sin in the human nature He assumed was destroyed at the very moment of His Conception

What is not assumed is not healed. He assumed Ancestral Sin and healed it by His Incarnation

He became Man so that we may become God. His Incarnation itself was the Abolishment of Ancestral Sin and Deification
No. He never had ansesreral sin. He couldn't be the new Adam if he did.
He wasn't born through generation as is typically of every human being except for Adam and Christ. Representation of the whole human race would require him to fill Adam's shoes. Since he wasn't born through generation, but of the holy spirit he is in all essence the new Adam. If he had ansesreral sin he could save himself, much less the entire creation.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
No. He never had ansesreral sin. He couldn't be the new Adam if he did.
He wasn't born through generation as is typically of every human being except for Adam and Christ. Representation of the whole human race would require him to fill Adam's shoes. Since he wasn't born through generation, but of the holy spirit he is in all essence the new Adam. If he had ansesreral sin he could save himself, much less the entire creation.
He assumed the Ancestral Sin, but it was abolished by His Incarnation. He assumed it but never had it

What is not assumed is not healed. He assumed it and healed it = abolished it in His Person
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
although we have not committed the original sin, we are all punished with the punishment of Adam, so it is ascribed to us like we have done it. Otherwise, if it was not ascribed to us, the form of the baptism of infants for the remission of sins would be false – something which the council of Carthage rejected.
Yes, but not the guilt. Sin itself is an action and a product.
 
Top