And the winner is…

“Christ’s flesh was true human flesh, but not sinful flesh; rather, it was completely pure of every sin and corruption, both of original sin and of voluntary sin. In His earthly life the Lord was free of any sinful desire, of every inward temptation; for the human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is united hypostatically to God. [In other words,] Christ did not assume the corruption of human nature and inclination toward sin that all other people have inherited from Adam. In this sense, Christ remained free from original sin. While passible (that is, subject to suffering), He was completely free of sinful passions and of the disease of sin. As […] writes, ‘[Mary] gave birth to Christ the Victor, for He was the only one [human] neither shapen in iniquity nor conceived in sin (Ps. 50:5), that is to say, in the fleshly pleasure, passion, and unclean thoughts that belong to our nature defiled by transgression.’ … The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption. In other words, the Virgin Mary was born with the inclination toward sin [i.e. concupiscence] which was a consequence of the fall of man. None of the Fathers say that God [perfected] the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by her divine Son.”

Advertisements

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to And the winner is…

  1. vermontcrank1 says:

    This has to be from the cadre of schismatic heretics in the East for they deny the Immaculate Conception.

  2. Charles says:

    My thought is a 16th Century thomist, for they denied the immaculate conception

  3. Andrew says:

    I’d say it’s not from an Eastern Orthodox, because the more theologically literate of the lot—following St. Athanasius—say that Christ assumed corrupt human nature.

  4. Tony Jokin says:

    Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Google :D)

  5. Andrew says:

    Ah, Pomozansky. Well, yes, that makes sense. Upon reflection, my original comment hinges upon what is meant by “corrupt” human nature. These two passages from Eastern Fathers, one from St. Cyril of Alexandria and one from St. Maximus the Confessor, do seem to lay stronger emphasis on the fallenness of Christ’s humanity.

    Therefore we say that, since from the transgression of Adam human nature suffered corruption and since our intellect within us is tyrannized by the pleasures of the flesh or by the inborn motions of the flesh, it became necessary for the salvation of us who are upon the earth that the Word of God be made man in order that he might make his own the flesh of man although it was subject to corruption and sick with the love of pleasure. Since he is life and life-giver, he would destroy the corruption in the flesh and rebuke its inborn motions, plainly those which tend toward love of pleasure. For thus it was possible that the sin in our flesh be killed. We recalled also that the blessed Paul called this inborn motion in us the “law of sin.” Wherefore since human flesh became the Word’s own, the subjection to corruption has come to an end, and since as God, he who made it his own and proclaimed it as his own “did not know sin,” as I said, he also put an end to the sickness of loving pleasure. And the only begotten Word of God has not corrected this for himself, for he is what he always is, but obviously for us. For even if we have been subject to evil from the transgression of Adam, by all means there will come upon us also the good things of Christ, which are immortality and the death of sin. Accordingly he became man, and did not assume a man, as it seems to Nestorius. And in order that it might be believed that he became man even though he remained what he was, God by nature obviously, therefore it is reported that he was hungry, and was weary from the journey, and endured sleep, and trouble, and pain, and the other human blameless experiences. — St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45 to Succensus

    Taking on the original condition of Adam as he was in the very beginning, he was sinless but not incorruptible, and he assumed, from the procreative process introduced into human nature as a consequence of sin, only the liability to passions, not the sin itself.— St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium 21

  6. ErnstThalmann says:

    Not knowing how else to express this question here, allow me to ask: What’s happened to all the activity at this site over the last several days? Its just died. I know its got to be a pain for Codg to generate piece after piece, day after day, but right now, one gets the sense that one has entered a deserted town. Hello, anyone home?

  7. unknownsaint says:

    I’ve been reading but I didn’t have anything to say really. Hello.

  8. ErnstThalmann says:

    Hello, there, unknownsaint. I certainly hope there have not been any deaths among the partisans here, although I’m beginning to wonder.

    I read where Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, the evangelical preacher, has spoken to the Pope’s observation last Summer that “If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge them?”.Graham reports that he feels compelled to tell people about his belief that homosexuality is a sin. He agrees with Francis that Francis isn’t the judge of sin, however. God is the judge, he said.

    Hearing this today on an Evangelical radio station while driving, one is hard pressed to defend the Pope against the implied criticism. How sad.

  9. Pingback: Guerilla blogfare… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam"

  10. unknownsaint says:

    I wouldn’t even try to defend the Pope on practically anything anymore.

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s