Human flesh of Christ

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Please forgive my ignorance with the following question: when we worship the Divine Person of Christ, to what extent or in what way are we, or are we not, worshipping His human flesh?

In Christ,
Byron

[Mina Soliman]

I believe we worship all aspects of Christ, His humanity and His divinity included in one worship. In our Coptic liturgy, the priests presents the Holy Body and the Sacred Blood upon which the congregation answers "We worship His Holy Body and His sacred Blood." St. Mary after all is the Theotokos. Many have also been documented in the gospels to have worshipped Him, and He openly accepted it.

God bless.

Mina

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Mina,

Thank you for you response, which is very clear, namely all aspects of Christ are worthy of worship. Indeed the Holy Sacrament, being the Body and Blood of our Saviour, is worthy of worship according to the Liturgy. Perhaps its a silly thought, but my question was really about matter. If worship is a human capacity reserved for God alone, then is it permissible to worship matter, even if it is penetrated through by Divine Energies, such as the Body of Christ or the bread become Body in Holy Communion? When we venerate an icon of Christ, we venerate the wooden icon, but we "send" our worship to Him via the icon. Is that correct? The Theotokos is to be venerated, first among saints; but she is still human, even if she is more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim. Worship is for God alone - but how shall this be understood, how shall it be practised? Were the figures in the Gospel falling at his feet worshipping His Divinity alone, or also His Body? When we offer our worship today, where should we direct our feelings (if "to God", does that include His material Body?)?

Or am I getting confused over nothing?!

In Christ
Byron

[Seraphim de'angelo]

Dear Byron, I'm not sure we can 'divide out' his different aspects. He is not 'divided' or 'compartmentalized'. He IS.

Also, I believe the first time Jesus 'accepted' worship was before His Resurrection, when the man who was blind from birth :

John 9:35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe,"<font color="red"> and he worshiped him."</font>

And is Worship our 'feelings?' or is Worship only adoration?

Or is Worship the Sh'ma? "Hear oh Israel.... & you shall Love the Lord your God with all your all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength"

& what does that kind of Worship look like?

Peace

Seraphim

[Klod]

Dear Byron,


as you know we worship Christ. In Christ there is One Person for both divine and human nature, and that is the Second Person of Trinity, the Son of God.
Therefore we worship the Whole Christ, including His material aspect, because it was the body of Christ bound in one Person.



There is certainly in Christ an elevation of material dignity, as there was a fall materiality because of sin. In the letter of Romans it is said that nature suffers because of sin.


Material aspect of humanity is not simply a locus where the spirit exercises his activity. More than that is a co-element necessary in salvation as in the fall of humanity., as it is even in nourishing man to stay alive.



Therefore we have 1) material aspect of humanity is honourable, worthy of venerating, in its own right, when it reflects the qualities and efficaciously as it was created from God. 2) In Christ material aspect was both venerated and worshipped, because in it was bound in a Person union, God Himself.
It burns as the cup would do if it contains hot water inside.


A King is venerated together with that which he is clothed in.


It is because of this union that we may venerate material holy things today.

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Byron,

I think you make good points. Here are my personal contemplations.

For one thing, I believe that worshipping Christ in Who and What He actually is, whether matter or matterless. Anything else perhaps is a presentation of Him. Iconagraphy presents Christ to us, and we worship Him and not the icon. It is like worshipping Christ who is present on the Cross. I do not worship the Cross, but Him.

All other created things have created persons. I am a person who never existed before 1984. Likewise there was a time when any created person did not exist, even the angels. Christ is the only Person, who is the Person of the Logos, that was ever-existent, the "Alpha and Omega," is the one Who we all worship. Therefore, His humanity, the humanity of the Logos is clearly something to be worshipped.

Iconography is not Christ's body, but since it bears Christ, we worship that Person in divinity and humanity that it represents. The body of the Theotokos, although her flesh is taken as to become Christ's body, is not Christ's body, but that of St. Mary. Her womb bore Christ to whom we worship (St. John the Forerunner in his fetal state worshipped Him in Her womb). She is like the icon that bears the One who created us. We are all called to be icons of God, but God is only worshipped.

Would that help draw the line in worship?

God bless.

Mina

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Mina, Klod, Seraphim,

Thank you for your responses, which prove very enlightening. As a physical being, one feels almost a sense of relief at being permitted to worship God in His Body. Of course it is a Body unlike any other body here on earth, but nevertheless the incarnation of the Logos lends unprecedented dignity to human flesh. Potentially even our own bodies have the capacity to be divinised! As Klod pointed out, even material holy things - church vessels, vestments, items of clothing from saints, St Peter's chains, and of course holy relics - are all permeated with divine energies, to be venerated by the faithful.

As for Seraphim's question about "what is worship", this is very interesting also from a psychological viewpoint. I've always thought of veneration as being profound respect, adoration as being that same respect with a feeling of love, and worship as being total surrender to the other, a kind of psychological "do with me what You Will". I'm not sure this is necessarily the accepted understanding, just my own private way of seeing these functions / feelings. What do others think? Are there technical definitions of these feelings?

In Christ
Byron

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Byron Jack,

I will attempt to share what little I'm familiar with about worship, realizing that it may, or may not be what you're after, or what is taught as the Orthodox viewpoint. In the latter case, well actually in both, correction is welcome!

There's within the framework of the regular Protestant service, an attitude which will colour their perceived effectiveness of the worship service. I know because for many years it's an attitude I mouthed myself after the Sunday morning service; " I didn't get anything out of it." I've since learned that this is so far from the truth as to be unbelievable!

I think I may have shared this before, although I'm not entirely sure. When the Church gathers together to worship, it is not to get anything from the service! When we gather to worship, we gather to kiss towards the One of our affections, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Inherent in worship -that is to me- seems to be a sense of humility, a "do with me what you will" attitude. I guess the best thing 'biblically' to illustrate it is the effussing of adoration in the Song of Solomon.

But as you say, this is just my personal understandings, and not the 'official statement' about worship.

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Klod]

As you know greek better then most of us, I think, venerating in greek is proskinia, whereas worship is adolatria.
The external form of both may be i many cases similar, however their intentions are profoundly different. That is, while in proskinia we aknowledge the importance and special place someone like ourselves occupies in certain aspects, in adolatria we intent to say that we worship because it is the source of our existence, that which keeps us alive and determines our future.
Saints and Engels may share in certain extent in these aspects as well, not by nature, but from grace.


Therefore when in our many prayers we say we surrender ourselves to Mary or our patron Saint and Engel, we understand this as their function given to them by God through Grace.


It is very important to understand this surrendering aspect of life in Christianity.


Holy Liturgy especially I think helps us a lot to understand ourselves as in both dimensions, as an individual person and as part of the whole, to understand the necessity that our individual personality develops only as a part of the whole, through the mediation of the other individuals that likes us form the Whole, and that the whole as well needs our individual person developing in order to continue to do so with others.


In this interchangeable grace by mediation we understand that as individual person we are similar to the whole. The church becomes one person, although one person is only a part of the church as an individual.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Klod and James A. Anthony,

"Proskino" in Greek originally meant greeting someone with a declaration of submission by kissing their hands or feet. The "kino" part of the word actually comes from an Indoeuropean root common with the root of the word "kiss" in English. James' definition of "kissing towards the One of our affections" comes quite close, although the greek word seems to involve, at least metaphorically, an element of submission to a higher authority, not "just" affection towards the Beloved. The Greek verb "latrevo" on the other hand implies devotion and faith in a divinity, is of uncertain etymology, and initially meant "to serve in the capacity of a waged worker or slave". In the Septuagint it was used in parallel with the verb "doulevo" meaning "to serve, to work for".

From all this I would say that both veneration (proskino) and worship (latrevo) contain an element of acknowledgement of a higher authority, with an emphasis on affection during proskinisis and service during latreia. However, so many words are coming up as a result of Seraphim's initial question, all words which are relevant to our psychospiritual experience of God and the life of the Church: veneration, adoration, devotion, worship, surrender, submission, proskinisis, latreia etc. All of these have their particular nuance of meaning and use, and my guess is that all are only approximate in their capacity to represent the actual religious experience. Nevertheless, it is interesting to try to describe the difference between our relationship with our Creator on the one hand, and our relationship with those aspects of His creation we have come to respect deeply as containing something of Him on the other.

Klod, I also like your description of the effect of attending the Holy Liturgy:


Holy Liturgy especially I think helps us a lot to understand ourselves as in both dimensions, as an individual person and as part of the whole, to understand the necessity that our individual personality develops only as a part of the whole, through the mediation of the other individuals that likes us form the Whole, and that the whole as well needs our individual person developing in order to continue to do so with others.

Are you influenced by anyone's thinking in particular in saying this? "Liturgy" as we know comes from "laou to ergon", the work of the people. As such it is a work of service to God (but of course in offering Him that which is His, it is we who are sanctified individually and collectively in the process).

All quite theoretical for me, I'm afraid. In the words of T.S. Eliot, "Let us not ask, 'what is it?', let us go, and make a visit".

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier in this thread, Mina S. wrote:


For one thing, I believe that worshipping Christ in Who and What He actually is, whether matter or matterless. Anything else perhaps is a presentation of Him. Iconagraphy presents Christ to us, and we worship Him and not the icon. It is like worshipping Christ who is present on the Cross. I do not worship the Cross, but Him.

So it comes down to the question of subject - i.e., who is the subject one addresses when one greets or speaks to Christ? Surely the Son, the eternal Logos. But the question must also be broadened, to ask what is entailed in a subject. So to take your further comments:


I am a person who never existed before 1984. Likewise there was a time when any created person did not exist, even the angels. Christ is the only Person, who is the Person of the Logos, that was ever-existent, the "Alpha and Omega," is the one Who we all worship. Therefore, His humanity, the humanity of the Logos is clearly something to be worshipped.

This seems very important. The subject that Christ is, the 'who' of the incarnate Jesus, is the eternal Son; that is, the subject did not come into being at the incarnation. But this subject, this 'who', the Son, is now human, is now flesh, and thus the flesh is the reality of who he is. It is not possible, therefore, to distinguish between the humanity and the subject, unless one wishes to divine the subject from his 'fleshly attire', which many would claim was the essence of Apollinarius' position.

You go on to say:


Iconography is not Christ's body, but since it bears Christ, we worship that Person in divinity and humanity that it represents. The body of the Theotokos, although her flesh is taken as to become Christ's body, is not Christ's body, but that of St. Mary. Her womb bore Christ to whom we worship (St. John the Forerunner in his fetal state worshipped Him in Her womb). She is like the icon that bears the One who created us. We are all called to be icons of God, but God is only worshipped.

The essence of the icon is in living symbol: that one genuinely, truly, encounters the one symbolised, through the symbol, which is, as you say, not one-and-the-same thing with the one encountered through it. But this conveyance of immediate encounter is not always divided: the Mystery of the Eucharist is chief among symbols that are what they convey - and in this sense beyond iconic.

I think a key point for the Christological discussion is that Christ's flesh, as incarnate, is neither iconic nor participatory: it is authentically his flesh - part of who he is as incarnate Son, just as much as our flesh is part of who we are as created beings. To worship Christ without his flesh is to worship one other than he who became truly incarnate.

XB, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I came across these intresting words from an Instruction on the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"The Lord's Body was not a spirit; It was spiritual, in the sense that It was free from the grossness (of matter) and subject to the spirit. The body which we now have is natural; it is animated by natural and physical qualities and forces. (That body, however, which we shall have) after the resurrection is called by Saint Paul spiritual; it is moved and governed by the Divine Spirit, not by its feelings, and in some unknown and spiritual manner it becomes and remains incorruptible." (taken from The Gospel Commentary put out by the Old Rite parish in Erie, Pa.)

Although this quote refers specifically to Christ after the Resurrection I think it can also be said to apply to His humanity beforehand. Christ has a true human and material nature at His Incarnation. He does not set this aside after the Resurrection or become 'free of it' (as in the gnostic version of things). But we must not go to the other extreme in assuming that the permanent adoption of humanity by Christ is an adoption of what is sinful or even of the weakness of humanity for its own sake. Rather the purpose of Christ's adoption of humanity is so that its perfection and purpose may be accomplished.

This I think is conveyed in the above quoted words about Christ's body being free from the 'grossness of matter and subject to the spirit'. Christ still has a body after the Resurrection and even at His Ascension He does not lay this body aside. Rather His Body is perfected in subjection to the spirit and He as our forerunner shows what the purpose of our humanity also is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings to you:

I believe that you have touched upon quite a significant issue which, according to my personal views, remains the only Christological principle that needs to be discussed and clarified between our two Churches.


"The Lord's Body was not a spirit; It was spiritual, in the sense that It was free from the grossness (of matter) and subject to the spirit. The body which we now have is natural; it is animated by natural and physical qualities and forces. (That body, however, which we shall have) after the resurrection is called by Saint Paul spiritual; it is moved and governed by the Divine Spirit, not by its feelings, and in some unknown and spiritual manner it becomes and remains incorruptible." (taken from The Gospel Commentary put out by the Old Rite parish in Erie, Pa.)

Although this quote refers specifically to Christ after the Resurrection I think it can also be said to apply to His humanity beforehand.

This seems to be reminiscent of Julianism, a doctrine anathematised by the Fathers of our Church (particularly St. Severus of Antioch), and even conciliarly by the Armenian Orthodox Church in particular.

According to Oriental Orthodox Christology, Christ voluntarily assumed our humanity i.e. corruptible humanity. This humanity became incorruptible at His Holy Resurrection, but was not so prior to this glorious event.

It must be noted however, that we nonetheless recognise the fact that the Lord Christ, being The Holy Word Himself, possessed and exercised dominion over the natural law to which His corruptible humanity was naturally subject to, and as such He was never an unwilling victim of His corruptibility as we are of our corruptibility.


we must not go to the other extreme in assuming that the permanent adoption of humanity by Christ is an adoption of what is sinful

According to Oriental Orthodox anthropology, there is nothing inherently sinful about human nature, nor did human nature undergo a fundamental change in and of itself subsequent to the fall. This was a point of contention between the Orthodox and the Julianists, the latter of whom understood sin to be intrinsic to the corruptible nature of post-fall humanity in contrast to pre-fall humanity which they alleged was incorruptible by nature.

Consequently, St. Severus of Antioch states, "the flesh of Christ was not subject to sin, though it was like our sinful flesh”. By "sinful flesh" St Severus is in fact qualifying our flesh according to the manner that we subjectively experience it, as opposed to the manner it objectively is in and of itself.


the purpose of Christ's adoption of humanity is so that its perfection and purpose may be accomplished.

Indeed. However, it is most significant that we understand that the accomplishment of this perfection was realised at His Holy Resurrection by means of His Holy Incarnation and His Holy life of perfect submission to the Father.

The Oriental Orthodox Church's dogmatic stance in opposition to Julianism expresses the depths of its concerns to safeguard the Orthodox Christological Faith from any form of "monophysitism", of which she perceived Julianism to be.

In IC XC
Athanasius Abdullah

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Christ's blessings be with you.


"The Lord's Body was not a spirit; It was spiritual, in the sense that It was free from the grossness (of matter) and subject to the spirit. The body which we now have is natural; it is animated by natural and physical qualities and forces. (That body, however, which we shall have) after the resurrection is called by Saint Paul spiritual; it is moved and governed by the Divine Spirit, not by its feelings, and in some unknown and spiritual manner it becomes and remains incorruptible." (taken from The Gospel Commentary put out by the Old Rite parish in Erie, Pa.)

When you write:


This seems to be reminiscent of Julianism, a doctrine anathematised by the Fathers of our Church (particularly St. Severus of Antioch), and even conciliarly by the Armenian Orthodox Church in particular.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the quote or my statement that "Although this quote refers specifically to Christ after the Resurrection I think it can also be said to apply to His humanity beforehand." I realize I took some risk in writing the comment I did since precisely I am not trying to deny Christ's assumption of corruptible humanity. Rather what I was trying to refer to is the purpose of Christ's Incarnation and economy as tied in specifically with the what I wrote following.

What I was actually trying to get at is the tendency we see in modern 'incarnational theology' & presentations of Christ to portray the Incarnation as if it is an adoption of human weakness for its own sake. Behind this lies the effort, I believe, to justify worldliness, since Christ's Incarnation, according to this way of seeing this, is a kind of blessing on the things of this world. This I believe while being a very popular way of seeing Christ- as if He is one of the boys- is also completely contrary to the purpose of Christ's Incarnation and indeed His whole economy. That is why I said:

"But we must not go to the other extreme in assuming that the permanent adoption of humanity by Christ is an adoption of what is sinful or even of the weakness of humanity for its own sake. Rather the purpose of Christ's adoption of humanity is so that its perfection and purpose may be accomplished."

In other words what I am trying to address is the purpose of Christ's Incarnation and economy. And especially during this current feast of the Asension I am trying to say that the purpose of His Incarnation is to get us to look up, not down.

To return to the Christological theme in your post. I am increasingly convinced that we are not looking carefully enough at what it means to say as we do that Christ assumed humanity in its fullness -except for sinfullness. More often than not, especially in modern times (which is the point of my yesterday's post) we stress the first part of this statement without carefully considering what it means to refer to a humanity without sinfullness. What indeed can such a humanity mean since so much that we ascribe to natural weakness (this came up in another thread about whether certain sins are natural or not) is in reality the result of sin? There is a mystery here extremely difficult to penetrate but we can look to Christ as a model of what this real humanity means. But again I think to see this we must look up, not down.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote above (boldface highlights added by me):


To return to the Christological theme in your post. I am increasingly convinced that we are not looking carefully enough at what it means to say as we do that Christ assumed humanity in its fullness -except for sinfullness. More often than not, especially in modern times (which is the point of my yesterday's post) we stress the first part of this statement without carefully considering what it means to refer to a humanity without sinfullness. What indeed can such a humanity mean since so much that we ascribe to natural weakness (this came up in another thread about whether certain sins are natural or not) is in reality the result of sin?

I think the distinction here requires quite a bit more fleshing out. (Fr Raphael mentions that it a connected theme has been discussed before, e.g. in the To be or not to be passionate (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1520) thread.) The question of just where and how sin figures into mortality / corruptibility (i.e. 'natural weakness') is at the heart of Christological concern. When the Son 'comes in the likeness of sinful flesh', but becomes 'like us in every way except sin', it is precisely this balance that is addressed. What is the meaning of 'sinful flesh', and how can in be possessed 'without sin'?

The question is brought out, too, in Athanasius' earlier post:


According to Oriental Orthodox anthropology, there is nothing inherently sinful about human nature, nor did human nature undergo a fundamental change in and of itself subsequent to the fall. This was a point of contention between the Orthodox and the Julianists, the latter of whom understood sin to be intrinsic to the corruptible nature of post-fall humanity in contrast to pre-fall humanity which they alleged was incorruptible by nature.

It would be helpful if you could say more, Athanasius, about who you understand the 'Julianists' to have been, and what you understand them to have taught. But the matter of the relationship of sin to the nature of humanity was debated widely. By the time Pelagius comes to criticise Augustine over the matter on an ascetical level (in the fifth century), it is clear that various understandings had formed in various locales -- it was far from a new debate (there are clear roots, in an anthropological context, all the way back through Athanasius and Apollinarius to Tertullian, Irenaeus, and obviously the author of Hebrews).

It strikes me that a common tendency - a weak, problematic tendency - amongst Orthodox, generally attempting to articulate a response to perceptions of Augustinian teachings on Original Sin, is to claim in a fairly unqualified way that human nature was not effected by sin. This seems a hearty misreading of the patristic testimony, as well as that of scripture ('in the likeness of sinful flesh' is not to be taken lightly, nor identifications of 'us' with 'sin', etc.). The patristic view has always been that human nature is effected by sin; the popular distinction is in many ways false. The debate in the early centuries was not over whether human nature was fundamentally effected, but whether that effect equates to an ontological mutation -- i.e., human nature become something 'other', through sin, than what it was in its original fashioning. Here the general (though not universal) line of the Greek fathers remained that there was no such ontological change in the nature of man; while the majority (but not the whole) of Latin fathers tended to follow something akin to what people today think of as 'Augustinian' thought on this. But whichever approach (and clearly the thought of the Orthodox Church does not allow for a conception of an ontological mutation of man by sin), the fact remains that human nature is effected by sin, so that language of 'fallen nature' or 'sinful nature' is appropriate, given a proper understanding of those titles.

It is precisely in the nuance that the question becomes so central to Christology. Scripture makes very clear 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.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew wrote


It is precisely in the nuance that the question becomes so central to Christology. Scripture makes very clear 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.

I think this is the necessary soteriological underpinning for my point which is really a pastoral/spiritual one. Or maybe precisely because it is not really based on a correct soteriology at all some can maintain that because of Christ's adoption of created nature then nature as we experience and know it now is blessed. In other words what I am trying to address is how in 'popular theology' Christ's Incarnation is taken as justifying us in forsaking the ascetic life. This is so contrary to the purpose of the Incarnation that something needs to be said for pastorally it ends up where we try to justify passionate behaviour by claiming it is 'natural'.

A lot of this as you say Matthew does get to the point of what we mean by natural in humanity.


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.

Man sins but this is not ontologically part of his nature. To say this positively man is by nature created to find his life in Christ. This means that Orthodox anthropology is based on the understanding of how man is created good but now this is so only insofar as he is continually purifying himself from sin. Natural man is ascetic man.

Correct Christology especially concerning what exactly Christ adopts of humanity points us towards a correct anthropology for in Christ we see who we really are. This has become such a common & cliched saying now though that its actual aim has been reversed. Christ didn't assume humanity so we could feel good about ourselves and our assorted passions. He assumed humanity to show how humanity even in its sinful "way of being, manner of existence" can find its way to another mode of existence ie from death to life in Christ.

What Matthew writes

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.

becomes a pattern for the sanctification of humanity itself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Natural man is ascetic man.

True enough, but the fast has been somewhat expanded from don't eat the apple.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Botolph]

Dear All,

Please forgive my ignorance with the following question: when we worship the Divine Person of Christ, to what extent or in what way are we, or are we not, worshipping His human flesh?

In Christ,
Byron

As a humble layman it is my contention that when we worship Christ, we are worshipping him as consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and also as truly man and truly God, two natures in one person. Since we consume his flesh and blood in Holy Communion, we are surely worshipping him in the flesh, the blood and the spirit.
The very question, to me, is a nonsense. We worship Christ in his person and as part of the Trinity.

In Christ

Botolph

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As a humble layman it is my contention that when we worship Christ, we are worshipping him as consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and also as truly man and truly God, two natures in one person. Since we consume his flesh and blood in Holy Communion, we are surely worshipping him in the flesh, the blood and the spirit.
The very question, to me, is a nonsense. We worship Christ in his person and as part of the Trinity.

In Christ

Botolph

Yes I think this is so. Always we focus on the Incarnate Person of Christ, One of the Holy Trinity. Although there are distinctions within the Person of Christ we don't usually focus on one of these in an exclusive way as worship surely is; ie I don't think we ever say for example in the services of the Church 'we worship Thy Holy human nature' or 'we worship Thy Divine nature'.

What we do say however is things like, 'We bow down before Thy Holy Cross' which refers to the economy of the Incarnate Son of God. In other words we do recognize the distinct aspects of Christ's economy and how through this economy His distinct natures are revealed. But where Christ's human nature is most clearly revealed to us the full meaning of this is made apparent through His Divinity; and where His Divinity is most clearly revealed to us the full meaning of this is made apparent through His humanity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael and Dr. Steenberg,

I hope to submit a thorough reply to your responses in the near future. I am currently in the process of studying for exams. Remember me in your prayers.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[Marcos G.]

Athanasius wrote:

"According to Oriental Orthodox anthropology, there is nothing inherently sinful about human nature, nor did human nature undergo a fundamental change in and of itself subsequent to the fall. This was a point of contention between the Orthodox and the Julianists, the latter of whom understood sin to be intrinsic to the corruptible nature of post-fall humanity in contrast to pre-fall humanity which they alleged was incorruptible by nature.

Consequently, St. Severus of Antioch states, "the flesh of Christ was not subject to sin, though it was like our sinful flesh”. By "sinful flesh" St Severus is in fact qualifying our flesh according to the manner that we subjectively experience it, as opposed to the manner it objectively is in and of itself."

I am not clear on what is meant by "the flesh of Christ was not subject to sin".

I am supposing this means that sin did not have lordship or dominion over Christ; that He was not touched by sin. Does this mean he was not temptable? Does it mean that as man He could be tempted, but as God He would not sin?

Yours in our Saviour,
Marc

[Tim Grass]

I am not clear on what is meant by "the flesh of Christ was not subject to sin".

I am supposing this means that sin did not have lordship or dominion over Christ; that He was not touched by sin. Does this mean he was not temptable? Does it mean that as man He could be tempted, but as God He would not sin?
Maybe it means that flesh doesn't sin by itself..... it sins as part of a person, but the real source of the sinning is the will, not the body. So Christ having flesh didn't mean he had something that automatically made him sinful?

What it can't mean is that his flesh was different from ours.... "Heavenly flesh" is what Apollinarius talked about in Christ. I remember that Gregory Nazianzen got pretty worked up about that idea...

--tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

If Christ is perfect God and perfect Man, then the perfection in the latter lies in His being made in the image of God, does it not? God made us in His Image, we are told, and through our own disobedience we have marred that Image; the Word made Flesh redeems all of mankind. He assumes our flesh as He meant it to be, not as we have made it.

Or at least that is my poor understanding.

In Christ

John