tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post7072155808277609082..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Could Christ have sinned when tempted by Satan?, On the Gospel for the 1st Sunday of LentFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56094257530920406162011-03-27T13:28:15.504-07:002011-03-27T13:28:15.504-07:00Keith, Indeed there is a great history of debate a...Keith, Indeed there is a great history of debate about these terms... St. Jerome (in particular) was exacerbated by the Greeks! :)<br /><br />In any case, thank you for adding to this discussion!<br />Peace to you and blessings for a holy Lent. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-15797655805450473212011-03-27T13:09:10.040-07:002011-03-27T13:09:10.040-07:00Father,
(I assume that it is Father). I've gi...Father,<br /><br />(I assume that it is Father). I've given some time to reflect on your comment. I suppose when I spoke of substantial union I was using the word in the Cyrillian, i.e. anti-Nestorian, sense of not accidental. I also want to stress the distinction between the union of the human nature to the divine nature in the Person as something "more" than the union of the blessed with God in the Beatific Vision. Still, your point is well taken that personal union is more precise and implies these very facts. Having checked in some sources I see that subsistentia, hypostasis are used a correlatives but that personal is the best way of expressing it in English, for whatever the modern connotations of person due to psychology, it at least cannot be misunderstood as substantia in the philosophical/material sense. Subsistentia seems not to have passed into english with the "persona" meaning intact. Probably due to the Leonine "duabus naturae, una persona." At least in this case it seems to me that Latin has carried the meaning of the Fathers better than the Greek philosophical terms. That may just be my Latin bias though. :)<br /><br />I'm really enjoying this blog btw. Keep up the good work, err.. certa bonum certamen fidei.<br /><br />Keith KenneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67517803786600743102011-03-25T20:05:02.094-07:002011-03-25T20:05:02.094-07:00@Keith Kenney (Anonymous 1:04am),
Very good commen...@Keith Kenney (Anonymous 1:04am),<br />Very good comments! I think you have stated the case very clearly and concisely.<br /><br />One small point -- "The union of the human nature and divine nature in the Second Person is such that it is a substantial union of pre-eminent excellence" -- I would rather say it is a "personal union" or a "hypostatic union"...since, "substantia" has connotations which we would not want to lean towards...<br />Nevertheless, I do recall that the Litany to the Sacred Heart says something like, "Cor Iesu, Verbo Dei substantialiter unitum"... so, perhaps we can speak of a "substantial union" between the two natures -- though, certainly, "personal union" is better.<br /><br />In any case, peace to you...and please do feel free to comment often! :)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56352637894108481092011-03-25T17:04:22.778-07:002011-03-25T17:04:22.778-07:00Re:Fr. Larry
The quotation of the Fathers concern...Re:Fr. Larry<br /><br />The quotation of the Fathers concerning what is not assumed is not saved is I believe being taken out of context. First, the meaning of the Fathers is that Christ must have a true human nature, i.e. body, soul (will and intellect) if our human nature is to be redeemed. It does not follow from this axiom that Christ therefore must have the capacity to sin in order that our human nature be redeemed. As has been eloquently elucidated above neither sin nor the capacity to sin constitutes human nature, nor specifically is it this capacity which constitutes free will. Rather it is a defect or privation, therefore that Christ was non posse peccare is an excellence in which we, too, shall share in heaven, albeit by grace.<br /><br />Secondly, as has been pointed out above there is in Christ one person only, and that person is divine. Hence the Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is the subject acting and it is therefore a manifest absurdity to attribute sin to a divine person.<br /><br />Finally, the hypostatic union of humanity to divinity entails that the human nature of Christ is ahypostatic which is then enhypostasized in the Divine Person who was eternally begotten. The union of the human nature and divine nature in the Second Person is such that it is a substantial union of pre-eminent excellence which exceeds even the experience of all the angels and saints in heaven, not only as the greatest exemplar but exceeding their blessedness collectively.<br /><br />In cordibus Iesu et Mariae,<br /><br />Keith KenneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78942383885147965222011-03-13T20:31:12.712-07:002011-03-13T20:31:12.712-07:00@Joseph,
You have brought up a crucial point...
Th...@Joseph,<br />You have brought up a crucial point...<br />The fallen angels fell precisely because they had not yet experienced the beatific vision. Though it is most likely that all the angels were created in grace, we know that they were not created with the beatific vision...they had too choose God.<br /><br />Regarding the freedom of the will and the possibility of sin ... please consider what I have offered in the article -- one is LESS FREE by being able to sin, and MORE FREE by being unable to sin (impeccable). Thus, God is the most free being of all.<br /><br />I hope this helps, Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67582703861719179582011-03-13T17:54:15.449-07:002011-03-13T17:54:15.449-07:00joepilgrum
The comments I have read seem to imply...joepilgrum<br /><br />The comments I have read seem to imply that the beatific vision somehow precludes the possibility of sin. Does it follow that we have no free will in heaven? If that is the case, what of the fallen angels?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14420159512445254746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68402849924668334782011-03-13T16:21:15.386-07:002011-03-13T16:21:15.386-07:00Dear Fr. Reginaldus,
Thank you very much for your...Dear Fr. Reginaldus,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your response, that definitely helps better understand Eden in relation to Heaven.<br /><br />I just realized that I posted my previous comment under the wrong post. It was supposed to go under the "Where was Mary assumed to?" post. I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused.<br /><br />Thank you and God bless,<br />SavioSavionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-51116375489555592222011-03-12T15:17:28.324-08:002011-03-12T15:17:28.324-08:00Savio, thank you for the interesting question!
Pu...Savio, thank you for the interesting question!<br /><br />Put very simply, the Earthly Paradise had some similarities to Heaven, but was essentially different.<br /><br />The main difference is that, although Adam and Eve were created in grace, they did not enjoy the Beatific Vision -- thus, it was possible for them to fall into sin.<br /><br />Other aspects of Eden were more like Heaven: for example, Adam and Eve would not have died.<br />Still, Eden was part of earth and not Heaven...<br /><br />Finally, I would point out that (as you seem to have hinted) Adam and Eve were not tempted by any interior struggle -- their temptation had to come from without, i.e. from Satan. Just as Christ could only be tempted exteriorly, so too Adam!<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-33713462926637206632011-03-12T15:06:45.368-08:002011-03-12T15:06:45.368-08:00This was a great reflection and definitely plenty ...This was a great reflection and definitely plenty of food for thought and prayer and meditation. Thank you very much for this.<br /><br />I just wanted to ask you if you could explain how the nature of Heaven as you have explained above would relate to the nature of Eden and our parents, Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall.<br /><br />Correct my understanding, if I am wrong, but wasn't Eden essentially a sort of Heaven? And man did not know suffering or death until the Fall. So how exactly would the nature of Eden and man in Eden prior to Original Sin relate to the nature of Heaven as you have explained above?<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />SavioSavionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-28364018319634348502011-03-12T13:18:34.669-08:002011-03-12T13:18:34.669-08:00It seems to me that the real key here is the follo...It seems to me that the real key here is the following line:<br />"And it must be admitted that these were true temptations; since, although Christ in no way submitted to them, they were truly waged against him by the Enemy."<br />The temptations of Christ were true, even though they were entirely external.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-43857327763431729252011-03-11T21:42:18.346-08:002011-03-11T21:42:18.346-08:00Fr. Larry,
I think you have articulated well the m...Fr. Larry,<br />I think you have articulated well the most common objection...<br />However, we must remember that the ability to sin is not freedom, but lack of freedom -- thus, God is perfectly free although he cannot sin.<br /><br />You ask: "If Jesus did not assume our ability to sin, how could He save us from sin?" I answer that Christ could not have been our redeemer if he could have sinned -- for our redeemer had to be both God and man, but God cannot sin.<br /><br /><br />The main point is that true freedom is about being able to choose between good actions, not sins. Thus, one who is impeccable (as are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is most perfectly free.<br /><br />Man is not more human by being able to sin; rather, when we are in heaven and are completely freed from all sin (and from all possibility of sin) we are most human and most free.<br /><br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7467374675190729972011-03-11T19:49:06.684-08:002011-03-11T19:49:06.684-08:00It should be noted that Jesus bore the temptations...It should be noted that Jesus bore the temptations of Israel for forty days and nights. He is Head of the New Israel, the New Adam who does not submit to temptation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-48360825503442974162011-03-11T18:04:54.630-08:002011-03-11T18:04:54.630-08:00I like the idea that a nature cannot sin, only a p...I like the idea that a nature cannot sin, only a person can sin. Yet, in 2 Corinthians 5: 21, we read "For our sake He made Him to be sin who did not know sin." Furthermore, the Church Fathers tell us that "That which was not assumed was not saved." If Jesus did not assume our ability to sin, how could He save us from sin? Since Jesus had a human will, that human will had to be able to make a choice -- "No one takes my life from me but I lay it down myself." (John 10:18). SInce love is an act of the will, if one cannot make that act of the will one is not truly free and, therefore, cannot love. If one has not the choice, one is a puppet and not free.Fr. Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720853744356979336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-66589031465101791632011-03-11T12:22:35.737-08:002011-03-11T12:22:35.737-08:00Thanks Fr. Reginaldus, for the helpful answers.Thanks Fr. Reginaldus, for the helpful answers.Msgr. Popenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-654253102243244192011-03-11T12:12:07.044-08:002011-03-11T12:12:07.044-08:00Msgr. Pope,
Thank you for the questions!
1) When ...Msgr. Pope,<br />Thank you for the questions!<br /><br />1) When Thomas talks about being tempted by the flesh, he is referring to interior temptation. Though this is not always a sin in itself, it always comes from sin -- either from actual sin or from original sin (i.e. the fomes of sin).<br />Thus, it is clear that, as Christ had no concupiscence, so too he had no interior tendency toward sin. Thus, he was not tempted "by the flesh" -- i.e. he did not suffering interior temptations.<br /><br />2) Gluttony is a sin of the flesh. However, Christ was tempted with gluttony (and perhaps even lust) as exterior temptations. He had no interior movement toward gluttony, but the external suggestions of gluttony were still real temptations waged against him by Satan. [in this sense, Christ did not suffer gluttony as the flesh lusting against the spirit, but as an exterior assault]<br /><br />3) I think that Thomas uses "flesh" in essentially the same way as St. Paul -- The "flesh" is the temptations (and the sinful dispositions) toward excess in taste and touch. Thus, the sins of the flesh are those relating to food/drink and sex.<br />Certainly, "flesh" isn't simply the physical body as a whole -- St. Thomas is not including the senses of hearing, smelling, or seeing (excepting insofar as they are related to sins involving taste and touch).<br />For St. Paul, the "flesh" is not merely everything hostile to the spiritual realm (he does not seem to include ambition as a "sin of the flesh"), but rather he seems to connect it mostly with sins of impurity (and also gluttony).<br /><br />4) Simply put, there are some ways in which Christ could not have been tempted. For example: We are tempted by memories of past sins, Christ could not have been so tempted. Again, we are tempted to unbelief, Christ could not have been so tempted (since he had "an intimate and immediate knowledge" of God the Father -- CCC 473).<br />Thus, we cannot say that Christ was tempted in every way in which we are tempted. Rather, we maintain that he was tempted in every way that does not come from sin, and that he overcame every temptation without ever sinning himself.<br /><br />I hope that these answers are clear enough -- obviously, I am speaking in summary form and very briefly, but hopefully it makes sense.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-22606503528062258622011-03-11T11:54:14.570-08:002011-03-11T11:54:14.570-08:00@David,
One cannot both be joyful and sorrowful ab...@David,<br />One cannot both be joyful and sorrowful about the same thing at the same time in the same respect.<br /><br />However, it was possible for Christ to have the beatific vision and also to suffer, because the vision was in his soul alone and (by a divine dispensation) did not pass into his body or even into the lower faculties of his soul, until after the Resurrection.<br /><br />Thus, before the Resurrection Christ could suffer. However, this suffering could not be in the highest part of the soul -- thus, he could not despair (for example), for he enjoyed the perfect vision of God. Still, he was sorrowful on account of sin (he also wept at Lazarus' death). <br />Indeed, St. Thomas tells us that Christ's sufferings were greater than any other's -- precisely because he enjoyed the beatific vision, he suffered most intensely at the sight of sin and death.<br /><br />Peace. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60146382356234702072011-03-11T11:34:26.882-08:002011-03-11T11:34:26.882-08:00It is a fascinating thing to ponder how Jesus, who...It is a fascinating thing to ponder how Jesus, who is a divine person, but also with a sinless human nature experiences temptation. I guess we cannot fully understand this given the fallen nature with which we think. <br /><br />But I do have a few questions. <br /><br />1. It is always sin (ipso facto) to be tempted by the flesh? Thomas seems to say it "always involves sin." But what if, for example, a man has a lustful thought which, when it occurs, he dismisses. Has he, in fact, already sinned? For it seems that the imagination often suggests things prior to a real engagement of the will and that one might be tempted without incurring sin. <br /><br />2. How is gluttony not a sin of the flesh? <br /><br />3. Is St. Thomas using "flesh" here as an equivalent of the physical body? For it would seem St. Paul uses the word flesh more widely to refer to a sinful dispoistion, or part of us that is hostile to things spiritual. <br /><br />4. Scripture says that Christ was tempted in every way we are, yet did not sin. The average reader would read this to say that Christ was tempted in every way but did not sin at all on account of it. Whereas it would seem St. Thomas reads it to mean, Christ was tempted in every way we are except in what he calls the temptation from the flesh and in that way Christ was not tempted. Is this correct?Msgr Popehttp://blog.adw.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-43412896214911451652011-03-11T10:41:55.097-08:002011-03-11T10:41:55.097-08:00Is it possible for anyone experiencing the beatifi...Is it possible for anyone experiencing the beatific vision to suffer?David Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603985019547718537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-14398666143067863602011-03-11T10:18:26.067-08:002011-03-11T10:18:26.067-08:00This is a subject I have been pondering for a whil...This is a subject I have been pondering for a while. Thank you. Even we, when we are tempted as baptized believers, have been given a promise that we will not be tempted beyond what we can endure. We, however, having an inclination to sin or concupiscence, and having been endowed with free will, can push the envelope and choose the sin. In the same way we can accept God's grace and refrain from the sin. The more often we resist temptation, I would think, the stronger the temptations might come BUT the stronger grace will come also. This morning's homily on EWTN had me think of another question. I wonder how many times Eve, and or Adam were tempted BEFORE they sinned. I read somewhere this week that our conscience is in our understanding. If this is so, then we have an opportunity to inform our will BEFORE we sin. <br />Ginny K.Allen Kennebunk, MaineGinny K. Allennoreply@blogger.com