Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theotokos and the Original Sin


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Fady

Fady

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 02:38 PM

First of all - I'm honored to be part of this amazing Forum, and I have enjoyed reading the various articles in it. even though my speciality as Apologetic - I spend most of my time in Arabic Speaking Forums where we debate with Muslims, but there were some questions that I couldn't understand the anser for them from the Orthodox side. neverthelss, I believe in the unity of Christ's Church, and these are some little differences that make no huge difference to our essential faith.

my question is: what biblical or tradition fact did you rely on to say that Mary the Virgin did inherit the origianl sin?

thanks for the answers in advance.

Fady

#2 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:24 PM

my question is: what biblical or tradition fact did you rely on to say that Mary the Virgin did inherit the origianl sin?


Since this was the belief from the apostolic times, I have to turn around the question and ask what do you rely on that makes you deny that she did (assuming that you accept the Roman Cathoic dogma of the immaculate conception)? Anticipating a reference to the infallible Papal pronouncement of the dogma and the visionary confirmation I have to remind you that the Orthodox Church has never accepted either the validity of these visions, nor the infallibility of the Pope.

Fr David

#3 Fady

Fady

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:43 PM

I have to turn around the question and ask what do you rely on that makes you deny that she did




as a faith constitution that I follow - I would say the Bible himself has annouced this fact, when God chose Mary to be the bearer of "God the Word" - he announced her full purity and grace through his Angel.

in the other hand, logically, I can presume that Mary should be pure even before she conceived iwth Jesus the "God". even Muslims in their Quran they say ""Behold! The angels said, 'Oh Mary! God has chosen you and purified you, chosen you above the women of all nations"" in Surah 3 "I guess" - I'm not here to quote from Quran, but since the concept itself makes sense to them, I don't see any problem with that.

#4 Rdr Thomas

Rdr Thomas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:06 PM

Fady,

It's not a lightweight or easy to read text, but Fr. John Romanides' "The Ancestral Sin" has a comprehensive treatment on this topic.

The Roman Catholic teaching on original sin and the Orthodox teaching of original sin are different, so the semantics of the term need to be cleared up first. Fr. John's text does that.

In a nutshell (and someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the RC teaching of original sin (what St. Augustin termed "seminal sin"....literally transmitted through the seed of man) is that we are guilty of Adam's sins by virtue of being of his seed.

The Orthodox view is that the Ancestral Sin warped all of creation. We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we do have to live with the consequences of it simply because we are born into this creation.

The result of this teaching is that not only was the Theotokos born into this "ancestral sin", but, by virtue of the Incarnation, so was Jesus. He was subject to the natural passions (hunger, thirst, etc.) that we all are. Put it another way, if Mary didn't share in this ancestral sin, she could not be member of the human race, and therefore neither could Jesus. And if that's the case, Jesus did NOT become like us. Happily, this is not the case. As Athanasius said, that which is not assumed cannot be saved. Jesus assumed all of humanity so that he could redeem it. He could not have done this if he wasn't born into the same condition as the rest of us.

Hope this helps!

#5 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,030 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:31 PM

The result of this teaching is that not only was the Theotokos born into this "ancestral sin", but, by virtue of the Incarnation, so was Jesus.


No, this is not Orthodox doctrine - it is heresy and is against the Orthodox understanding of the Lord's Incarnation. The Fifth Ecumencical Council condemned this idea (promoted by Theodore of Mopsuestia). Christ's human flesh was truly human but that flesh was deified at the moment of the Incarnation. How could the divine nature share in a sinful nature? Christ was completely pure of all sin both ancestral and voluntary. To say otherwise violates the hypostatic unity with the Divinity.

#6 Rdr Thomas

Rdr Thomas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:43 PM

I knew someone would correct me if I spoke wrongly! :-) Thank you Reader Andreas.

Let me rephrase: Jesus was subject to the natural passions, correct? This is the point I was trying to make.

#7 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,030 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:57 PM

The human flesh continued in its state and attributes, hence our Lord knew thirst and so forth.

#8 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:59 PM

Hello Fady,

Welcome to the forum!

This is an excellent thread you should read. If you have any questions after reading it, please do ask!

http://www.monachos....e-Mother-of-God

#9 Fady

Fady

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 08:34 PM

Thanks ANTONIOS, and thanks for everyone who responded, I will read the link thoroughly and will get back to discuss it furter.

thanks,
Fady

#10 Rdr Thomas

Rdr Thomas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:26 PM

Not wishing to persist in heretical formulations, let me see if I can re-couch the above, avoiding Theodorus' mistake (just pulled out my post-nicene Fathers to refresh).

----------------------------------

The Orthodox view is that the Ancestral Sin warped all of creation. We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we do have to live with the consequences of it simply because we are born into this creation.

The result of this teaching is that the Theotokos had to be born into this "ancestral sin", so that Jesus could take on the fullness of the human condition. He was subject to the natural passions (hunger, thirst, etc.) that we all are, but took them on to deify them (thus He is called the Second Adam). Put it another way, if Mary didn't share in this ancestral sin, she could not be member of the human race, and therefore neither could Jesus. And if that's the case, Jesus did NOT become like us. Happily, this is not the case. As Athanasius said, that which is not assumed cannot be saved. Jesus assumed all of humanity so that he could redeem it. He could not have done this if he wasn't born into the same condition as the rest of us.

-------------------------------------------

I, like the Fathers of the Fifth council, repudiate Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas.

#11 Aidan Kimel

Aidan Kimel

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:24 PM

No, this is not Orthodox doctrine - it is heresy and is against the Orthodox understanding of the Lord's Incarnation. The Fifth Ecumencical Council condemned this idea (promoted by Theodore of Mopsuestia). Christ's human flesh was truly human but that flesh was deified at the moment of the Incarnation. How could the divine nature share in a sinful nature? Christ was completely pure of all sin both ancestral and voluntary. To say otherwise violates the hypostatic unity with the Divinity.


Andreas, could you direct me please to the specific decrees or canons of the 5th ecumenical council that you have in mind. Thanks.

Fr John Meyendorff is one Orthodox theologian who does believe that the eternal Logos assumed fallen human nature. Now maybe this is just a matter of semantics: (what exactly is fallen human nature? is there such a thing as a fallen human nature?). Meyendorff believes that the Church's rejection of Aphthartodocetism is key here. He writes:

It is the mortal, corruptible, and fallen humanity which was assumed by the Logos. This was well understood particularly by the Alexandrian Fathers, promoters of a high Christology: Athanasius and Cyril. And this is precisely the reason why their Christological position made theopaschism inevitable: the divine Logos himself voluntarily assumed mortal humanity and therefore had to die in the flesh. The implication was not "anthropological minimalism," as Florovsky once wrote, but, on the contrary, the affirmation that humanity and its fallen condition were such a real and crucial fact that they brought about a self-emptying of God Himself as condition for salvation and true restoration. That the high Alexandrian Christology does not imply a diminution of humanity in Jesus is also shown in the sixth-century debate around the Aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus. The point of Julian was simple: since death and corruption (phthora) are consequences of human sin, they could not have been present in Jesus, who did not sin. Thus, according to Julian, Jesus possessed an "incorruptible" (aphthartos) humanity. Julian's critics were right in saying that he was in fact a Docetist: the death of Jesus on the cross was only an "appearance," not a real experience of what death is for other human beings.

But if one conceives of Christ as sharing the determinism of corruptible and fallen humanity, what happens to divine freedom? Did not the Logos suffer voluntarily? The rejection of Aphthartodocetism by the Church was not intended at all, however, as a denial of divine freedom. Indeed, the Incarnation in all its aspects was an expression of the free will of God. But God willed precisely that, as man, Jesus, since his conception in the womb of Mary, would be fully conditioned by what our human, fallen existence is: he lived in time, "grew in wisdom," did not know, suffered, and died. On the other hand, the hypostatic union--i.e., the conception and the birth of the God-man Jesus--is not yet by itself a deification of Jesus' human nature. Deification would have been a somewhat automatic happening if, as some have supposed, the Incarnation was simply the manifestation of a pre-existing God-manhood of the Logos, fulfilled when he became a human being. In fact, the Incarnation implied tragedy and struggle. The Creator, by assuming the created and fallen flesh, met evil and death face to face. He met and overcame these realities of the fallen world, which he did not create but only tolerated. This tolerance reached its ultimate point when the incarned Son of God accepted a human death on the cross: this ultimate point was also his ultimate victory. ("New Life in Christ")


In his book Christ in Eastern Christian Thought Meyendorff analyzes St John of Damascus's rejection of Aphthartodocetism. He quotes St John:

He assumes the natural and incorruptible passions of man, such as hunger, thirst, tiredness, toiling, tears, corruption, reticence before death, fright, anguish, which provokes sweat, drops of blood, the comfort brought by the angels to the weakness of the flesh, and all the rest which belongs by nature to all men. (p. 165)



Meyendorff then concludes:

Christ's human nature, however, is not ... an abstract human nature: it is our human nature, as it exists concretely with all the consequences of Adam's sin. ... For John, and for the whole orthodox tradition, the incarnate Word accepted, from his conception, the assumption of human nature in its fallen state. As God, hypostatically, he undoubtedly remained free from the passions and from human nature itself, but the economy of salvation implied that once and for all he should become Servant, that he should accept the necessities of human nature, but not of sin, in order to free himself from them "from within," and by doing just that, to open the way to freedom for the whole of mankind.

Precisely because in him the passions did not imply sin, that is, the "corruptible passions," they possessed a redemptive character. In Christ the Christian acquires freedom. The passions did not overcome him, and insofar as we are in him, they have no dominion over us either. (pp. 164, 166-167)


Not trying to be contentious (I don't know enough on the subject to contend), but I thought Fr John's reflections might be helpful.

#12 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,030 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:03 PM

Andreas, could you direct me please to the specific decrees or canons of the 5th ecumenical council that you have in mind. Thanks.



I was actually basing myself on Pomazansky (p 185) as I understand his work to be sound. I can only suppose that in his reference to the Fifth Council, he had in mind the following:

XII.
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, as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to the Person of God the Word (just as one worships the image of an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin . . . (and so on - anathema follows)

St John Chrysostom says that Christ’s flesh was like ours but not sinful as ours (Homily XIII on Romans). A footnote to the text says that SS Basil, Athanasius and Cyril thought this.

There must also be something in the Church’s hymnography but I cannot locate it just now. In any event, I’m getting out of my depth here.

Helpful is this from Archimandrite Irenei from another thread:

that the Son assumed 'sinful flesh', but assumed it sinlessly. The elements of mortality inherent in human nature cannot be understood as the justification for this 'sinful' quality to the flesh -- were that the case, the reading would become essentially Valentinian (i.e. 'Gnostic'). But neither can the reading become that Christ took some pristine flesh, unmarred by the sin common to all, because -- and I think I read this as Fr Raphael's point -- then the whole of the incarnation's soteriological significance is lost. In this line, too, the common 'He became man, but man without sin, because real humanity doesn't involve sin - we are sub-human in our sin and Christ became proper, sinless man', has its value; but it, too, must not be exagerrated or taken blindly. Sin is part of our human experience and human life.

The sinless assumption by Christ of sinful flesh ought to call into question our very relationship of 'sin' and 'human', an do so on grounds of the very kinds of debates common in the early Christian world. If sin is perceived as a kind of 'part' of human reality, the 'Christological problem' becomes essentially unsolvable. He either has it, and is thus himself sinful; or he doesn't, and is thus not fully human. But cannot sin be seen as 'existential' -- not to use that term in relation to the school of existentialism, but in its basic meaning of way of being, manner of existence. Humanity as sinful, as fallen, is a being that exists sinfully; and Christ takes up humanity in this sinful conext, this sinful life and way of being, but lives it without realising that sin in himself.

(From: http://www.monachos....flesh-of-Christ)

Basically, I have always understood that Christ's human nature - 'flesh' - was sinless, but that He voluntarily took upon Himself our sin to redeem us. Is that a fair summation of our faith in this?

Edited by Andreas Moran, 06 August 2012 - 11:29 PM.


#13 Fady

Fady

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 02:03 PM

Thanks for everyone,

while I was searching the forefather's homilies and preaching words about this concept, it looks like many of them have adopted this idea (Mary The Virgin is Sinless) - so it's not a new thing Catholics came up with but is rooted in the history of our fathers:

Third Century Witnesses

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
- Hippolytus, Orations In illud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only Begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." - Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

Fourth Century Witnesses

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary."
- Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
- Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides."
-Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

[In the above quote by Saint Athanasius, the defender of the divinity of Christ, we find him identifying Mary with the gilded Ark of the Covenant. Moreover, he is praying to her.]

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
- Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

Fifth Century Witnesses

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
- Augustine, Nature and Grace, 42 [36] (A.D. 415).

"As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
- Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

[The quote above by Proclus demonstrates that the primative Eastern Church did already articulate sin in term of a transmitted and contracted "stain." Contemporary Eastern Orthodox dismissals of "the stain of original sin" is disingenuous.]

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
- Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11 (ante A.D. 446).

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
- Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

Sixth Century Witnesses

"The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
- Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

Seventh-Ninth Century Witnesses

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay."
- Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Dormition of Mary, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God.... The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation."
- Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

"Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever."
- Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." John Damascene, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

#14 Rdr Thomas

Rdr Thomas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:31 AM

Fady,

I think there still might be some confusion on what we mean by "original sin". None of the quotes you offer reject the definition of ancestral sin as I understand it. Was she sinless? Yes, I believe that. But was she subject to the "curse of Adam" and the "wages of sin"? Yes! How do I know this? Because she died. The proof of her humanity (and Jesus') is that they died. Jesus deified His flesh and raised Himself after His death, however. Blessed Mary could never have saved herself had Jesus not been born.

I really think you should track down a copy of "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, the Birthgiver of God" by St. John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and Shanghai. It's a very short booklet....88 pages including the preface, introduction and index. And Fr. John Romanides' "Ancestral Sin". That one you'll need to carve out time for.

By the way, Origen, as influential as he was, is not considered a Father in the Church.

#15 Fady

Fady

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:09 PM

Was she sinless? Yes, I believe that. But was she subject to the "curse of Adam" and the "wages of sin"? Yes!



thanks for your comment - you say that she was sinless, and we all agree on that - the only question remains, was she sinless from the date she was born? or after? if the answer is that she is sinless from the date she was born, then this has confirmed the concept that Mary didn't inherit the original sin. if she is sinless after she was born - then we have to answer this important question: how did God chose her to bear his son if he knew she is sinner "by nature"?!


How do I know this? Because she died. The proof of her humanity (and Jesus') is that they died. Jesus deified His flesh and raised Himself after His death, however. Blessed Mary could never have saved herself had Jesus not been born.


forgive me - but we are not talking about "divinity" of Mary - death is a natural cause of her human nature, and we have to distinguish between her "Spirit" and "Flesh" - and this is why we believe "according to the tradition" that God have ascended her to heaven when she died - because she will be worshipped if he didn't do so! at least she has equalized Jesus in this step!

By the way, Origen, as influential as he was, is not considered a Father in the Church.



as for Origen, I believe and every scholar believes that he passed 4 out of 7 Patristic Status criteria.

he passes: "holiness of life," "a certain antiquity," "citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers," and I'm not sure but perhaps there was "public reading in Churches in early centuries." He passes the third category with flying colors; the man was extremely influential and was loved by many saints.

I believe there has to be a revision for his works and life - which we can discussed later on in a seperate subject.

my best regards.
Fady

Edited by Fady, 09 August 2012 - 04:10 PM.
confirming a point!


#16 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:51 PM

thanks for your comment - you say that she was sinless, and we all agree on that - the only question remains, was she sinless from the date she was born? or after? if the answer is that she is sinless from the date she was born, then this has confirmed the concept that Mary didn't inherit the original sin. if she is sinless after she was born - then we have to answer this important question: how did God chose her to bear his son if he knew she is sinner "by nature"?


And here is the crux of the matter. In the Orthodox Faith, we are all born sinless - we bear no guilt or taint of sin. We do, however, inherit the consequences of Adam's sin - that is corruption and death and the propensity to choose sin. But we do not bear any guilt. Thus the "immaculate conception" is completely irrelevant for Orthodoxy for we are all "immaculately conceived". Thus the Virgin was born pure and without sin and she remained so throughout her life. Even so, she needed the redemption of Christ to heal the sickness of corruption and death with which she (like all of us) was infected.

The Roman dogma of "original sin" - or better yet "original guilt" - developed from the writings of Augustine, Anslem and Aquinas, is a departure from the original patristic teaching about the nature of man and the consequences of the fall. It is one of the basic errors of the Roman Church from which many other errors have sprung.

Fr David Moser

#17 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,030 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:16 PM

As far as I can tell, all mankind has borne ancestral sin which is the consequence of the Fall. The Mother of God must also have borne ancestral sin. Christians are cleansed from ancestral sin by baptism. The Mother of God was cleansed of ancestral sin by the Holy Spirit at the time of the Annunciation in order to be prepared to receive the Incarnate Word in her womb. However, as we know, being cleansed of ancestral sin does not restore our bodies to a pre-Fall condition; we still have 'garments of skin', that is bodies which are different from, more 'fleshy' than, Adam and Eve's pre-Fall bodies. We only get those after the Last Judgment. It follows, then, that Christ had a body like ours, a post-Fall one, but in His entire being free of all sin including ancestral sin. Is this right?

What I have never been sure of is whether Christ, having a post-Fall body, would have grown old and died as we do. I also do not know how Christ's post-Fall body relates to the Transfiguration; did His body shine so in the same way as, but far more so, the faces of the saints shine as we read in the stories of their lives?

#18 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:42 PM

Dear Rdr Andreas,

I'm looking to stay out of the tread in general for today as it is bit late to post and I need to do a bit more reading on some of this, but I would like to reply to your last point.

I also do not know how Christ's post-Fall body relates to the Transfiguration; did His body shine so in the same way as, but far more so, the faces of the saints shine as we read in the stories of their lives?

As far as I know the answer would be yes and no, it is not so much a matter of how much but how. Christ shone forth His Godness (Divinity), the uncreated light of the Trinity, as far as the apostles could bare it, this is the same light which shines in the faces of the saints, but in them it shines a little like the moon shines reflecting the sun, they being united to Christ God shine forth his light. But He is the source they shine only beacuse He does and they are united to Him, Christ shines because of who He is.

In Christ.
Daniel,

#19 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,030 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:58 PM

Thank you Daniel. Thank you also to the member who pointed to the Synaxarion from which this:

And as he prayed, the aspect of His face suddenly changed, and it was transfigured and shone like the sun, and His raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow, such as no fuller on earth can white them (Lk 9:28, Mk 9:3, Matt 17:2). The Incarnate Word of God thus manifested the natural splendor of the Divine Glory, which He possessed in Himself and which He had kept at His Incarnation, but which had remained hidden under the veil of the flesh. From the moment of His conception in the womb of the Virgin, His divinity had been united without confusion with the human nature of His flesh, and the Divine Glory had become, hypostatically, the glory of the body He assumed. What Christ revealed to His disciples on the summit of the mountain was not therefore something new, but the resplendent manifestation of the divinization in Him of the whole of the human being – including the body – and of its union with the divine splendor.

Whereas the face of Moses had shone with a glory that came from outside it after the revelation on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29), Christ’s face appeared on Tabor as a source of light, the source of the divine Life rendered accessible to mankind, which also spread to His raiment, that is to say, to the external world and the fruits of human activity and civilization.

‘He was transfigured,’ Saint John Damascene assures us, ‘not by assuming what He was not, but in revealing to His disciples what He was, opening their blind eyes and making them see.’[4] Christ opened the eyes of His disciples, and it was the sight transfigured by the power of the Holy Spirit that they saw the divine Light indissolubly united to His body. They were therefore transformed themselves and it was in prayer that they were able to see and understand the change that has taken place in our nature through its union with the Word (St Gregory Palamas).

#20 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:30 PM

As for Origen, I believe and every scholar believes that he passed 4 out of 7 Patristic Status criteria.

he passes: "holiness of life," "a certain antiquity," "citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers," and I'm not sure but perhaps there was "public reading in Churches in early centuries." He passes the third category with flying colors; the man was extremely influential and was loved by many saints.

I believe there has to be a revision for his works and life - which we can discussed later on in a seperate subject.


I was just reading through the Anathemas of the Fifth Holy Ecumenical Synod and I remembered the discussion here about whether Origen was one of the Holy Fathers. To quote the Holy Synod -emphasis mine:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.


In Christ.
Daniel,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users