Christ's human nature..

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I've recently been discussing the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) with an Orthodox Christian and why they don't believe in it, etc.

Somehow, the discussion turned to one on the nature of Christ's humanity (His humanity came from Mary, who we, as Catholics, profess to be immaculate through grace).

The Orthodox view of Original Sin is that it brings mortality, not sin. I mentioned something about mortality being the stain of sin (hence, not immaculate, but we profess Mary to be "sine macula".. without stain...=immaculate, and Christ as well). However, in the Orthodox view, Christ had a fallen human nature.

At first, the idea was completely unacceptable to me, that Christ should possess something fallen (and thus, not immaculate), but my Orthodox friend keeps insisting that "what is not assumed is not healed" thus if Christ did not assume a fallen human nature then we are not saved. He agreed with me that human nature is human nature (i.e., we weren't unhuman after the Fall), but yet he still insists upon Christ's having a fallen human nature, "He took upon Himself what was broken to fix it"

So it's starting to make a little more sense, and then, St. Thomas Aquinas says:
[quote]It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Rm. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Is. 53:4, "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Phil. 2:7: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."[/quote]
Does the body being subject to infirmities make it "fallen"?? Did Christ possess a fallen human nature?
Can one possess an immaculate human nature subject to defects and death? Part of the doctrine of the Assumption is that Mary did not have to die (and thus, the doctrine says nothing of her death, and it becomes something of a theological opinion)... however, since Christ was God, could He not subject His own immaculate human nature to death at His will?

Explain, discuss, ....educate me!


(sorry so confusing, but I'm going like this: )

[cmotherofpirl]

Christ had a human nature but it was NOT fallen.
He assumed humanity but not original sin.

[Qoheleth]

Is suffering impossible without a fallen nature, or would it just not happen? Before the fall, when Adam and Eve lived in communion with God, there would have been nothing to harm them, and so suffering would not occur. But hypothetically, if some sinful person had snuck into Eden and hit Adam, I imagine he would have to feel pain, since in order to be human he would have to have been able to physically feel pain.

I think the suffering that is a result of the Fall is an effect not of some change in humanity, that allows them to suffer, but rather of a change in circumstance, that surrounds them with suffering. So although Christ was immaculate (that is to say that He was not fallen), and did not deserve any of the sufferings of the world, when He entered the world as a human, He assumed the human capacity for suffering (such as a body that responds to hunger and pain, neither of which would have been present in Eden). In other words, being fallen implies suffering, but suffering does not necessarily imply being fallen.

This is my answer, not a Magisterial one, and even so it only answers half the question. Whether or not Christ's human nature had to be fallen to save mankind probably depends on the mechanism of Christ's salvation being proposed. I think St. Anselm was of the opinion that only Christ was a fitting sacrifice to justify mankind, in which case it would seem to follow that Christ had to be perfect (Lev 22:20; "You shall not offer one that has any defect"). But as far as I know the Orthodox Church has never accepted this explanation of how mankind is justified in Christ, so this argument wouldn't work in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy.

[CatholicCid]

"I've recently been discussing the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) with an Orthodox Christian and why they don't believe in it, etc. "

Do they also believe that Jesus was not concieved of the Holy Spirit then?

[daugher-of-Mary]

CatholicCid,
The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's exemption from the stain of original sin by God's grace, not Jesus' conception. It's confusing, I know!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 28 2005, 01:50 PM'] Christ had a human nature but it was NOT fallen.
He assumed humanity but not original sin. [/quote]
I think, perhaps, according to the Orthodox definition of Original Sin one could say that Christ assumed a fallen human nature, but not so with the Catholic definition of Original Sin.

All a matter of defining terms, perhaps, though it's hard (for me!) to be patient enough! lol.

I also found something else interesting in the "Summa"
[quote]Christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this it was necessary for Him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace in His soul. [b]Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace[/b]. And thus it was not fitting for Him to assume all human defects or infirmities. For there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy, and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man, e.g. from inordinate eating; sometimes by a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost, Who has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the order of His life. But [b]there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ assumed[/b], which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls "natural and indetractible passions" --natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace. [/quote]
So, I guess, in one sense, Christ assumed certain aspects (defects) of our fallen nature, though He did not assume a fallen nature Himself.

I wish the Catechism mentioned this more!

[phatcatholic]

i think its safe to say that he assumed those aspects of a fallen human nature that are not incompatible with his perfect knowledge and grace. we admit as much whenever we say things like "Jesus was a human just like the rest of us" and "he was tempted by the devil just like the rest of us" and "he felt every range of emotion just like the rest of us." we can and should relate w/ Jesus in this way.

however, just b/c we admit this much, it does not necessarily follow that he was sinful, or inclined to sin (concupisence). these are those things that are utterly incompatible with his equally divine nature and that come as a result of original sin. were he to inherit these things, then (i don't think) the hypostatic union would be as perfect, and he would be in need of a savior as well.

so, we know that his human nature held no stain of sin, neither did it hold the inclination to sin. he received this human nature from his mother. therefore, mary's human nature is immaculate. of course, since mary is only human, we can say mary IS immaculate.


*please note that this is all me thinking out loud. any errors come from me having not really thought about this before.

Edited May 29, 2005 by phatcatholic

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I hope Apotheoun sees this. Being an Eastern Catholic, he could provide good insight...

One thought:
Adam was created without sin, so doesn't it make sense that the New Adam would be born Immaculate?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='thedude' date='May 29 2005, 09:03 AM']
One thought:
Adam was created without sin, so doesn't it make sense that the New Adam would be born Immaculate? [/quote]
Neither Orthodox nor Catholic are claiming that Christ had sin...

But the Orthodox view, to my understanding is that Christ assumed a fallen human nature (for their view of Original Sin is not the same as the Catholic understanding-- for them, through Original Sin we inherit mortality). So I think, in the Orthodox understanding one could claim Christ had a fallen human nature, but not so in the Catholic understanding of Original Sin and what a fallen nature entails.

I like the last bit I posted from St. Thomas Aquinas, it made it helpful and a little more clear... Christ assumed only those defects not incompatible with His person, those common to all men-- thirst, hunger, death, etc. Makes sense.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Here's more from Aquinas:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401501.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401501.htm[/url]
The most relevant quote being:
[quote]God "made Christ sin"--not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is written (Osee 4:8): "They shall eat the sins of My people"--they, i.e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin. And in that way it is written (Is. 53:6) that "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (i.e. He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all men); or "He made Him sin" (i.e. made Him to have "the likeness of sinful flesh"), as is written (Rm. 8:3), and this on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed.[/quote]

The Angelic Doctor references Romans 8:3,
[quote]"For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh..." NAB

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh" DRB-CR[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

The problem is that the term "fallen nature" is loaded with Manichaean overtones, because nature is not in reality "fallen"; instead, what can be thought of as "fallen" is the hypostatic enactment of nature by the human person after the ancestral sin. The term "fallen nature" is problematic from an Eastern perspective because it tends toward a type of dualism.

Nature in itself, i.e., in its essence, was unaffected by Adam's disobedience. Now that does not mean that humanity has not been wounded by the ancestral sin, because clearly it has been. But the wound occurs at the level of hypostatic enactment, and not at the level of nature. That is why it is important to remember that Christ assumes a complete human nature, but He does not assume a human hypostasis.

That being said, Christ does not assume a "fallen nature," although He does assume the "defects" afflicting man since the time of Adam's sin. But in the case of those defects (which must not be thought of as "moral defects"), He accepts them by an act of His own will, and then overcomes them by the power of divine energy. As St. John Damascene points out, from the first moment of Christ's incarnation, the subsistence of the Eternal Logos actuates the humanity assumed and divinizes it (see John Damascene, [u]De Fide Orthodoxa[/u], 3:12); thus any "defects" experienced by Christ, are experienced by an act of His will, and are not something over which He had no control.

[phatcatholic]

what do you mean by "the hypostatic enactment of nature" and "human hypostasis"? what's the difference between "assuming a fallen nature" and "assuming the defects afflicting man since the time of Adam's sin"?

Edited May 29, 2005 by phatcatholic

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 29 2005, 04:01 PM'] what do you mean by "the hypostatic enactment of nature" and "human hypostasis"? what's the difference between "assuming a fallen nature" and "assuming the defects afflicting man since the time of Adam's sin"? [/quote]
A change in human nature would be something along the line of man no longer seeking God. It is man's very nature to seek God, and a change or fall in nature would be a change in man at his very core. A defect that has afflicted man could be something like disease and the like. Look at Mary, she was concieved without original sin, but still had to suffer the effects of that sin. I imgine that is what he is getting at. Nature is not fallen, but ratther stained.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 29 2005, 02:01 PM'] what do you mean by "the hypostatic enactment of nature" and "human hypostasis"? what's the difference between "assuming a fallen nature" and "assuming the defects afflicting man since the time of Adam's sin"? [/quote]
Hypostasis = subsistence, and is commonly translated as "person"

In Christ there is only one hypostasis, i.e., the eternal hypostasis of the Logos, and that is why Christ is not a human hypostasis or person.

The doctrine of the Church holds that Christ assumed a complete and integral human nature, but that He is not a human person (hypostasis). As far as sin is concerned it is not natural and that is why when He became man, He did not assume sin.

The problem with speaking of a "fallen nature" is that it has Manichaean tendencies. Sin is not natural; instead, it is unnatural. As a consequence, man's essential nature was not affected by the fall of Adam; instead, his hypostatic (personal) enactment of his natural will was affected, what St. Maximus calls the gnomic will.

All of this is connected to the Christological councils of the Church, especially the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople III.

[Catholictothecore]

Christ took on the consequences of sin willingly. Thus, he died due to our sins, even though he himself had none. He was tempted to sin. That does not make him fallen.

Just because a fortress is under seige does not make in vulnerable.