Prelapsarian Life

The Mystery of Primordial Paradise. Part 1. What is life in Paradise like?https://t.co/QmL0krqZlC

Priest Valery Dukhanin

Divine Revelation tells us that God didn’t place man in the primordial Paradise to relax under the palms and pick the fruit of the trees of Paradise. pic.twitter.com/qnZfuB5ifl

— Orthodox Christianity (@Orthodoxy2019) February 3, 2021

Speculation on Prelapsarian Human Nature

How far can one take it? And why should one take St. Maximos the Confessor as THE expression of Tradition on these points?

Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?

If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me. 

Saint Maximus taught that sadness is in fact a blameworthy passion that is the result of the fall—a stain of original sin. In the Questions to Thalassius he writes that after the Fall:

[T[he great and innumerable mob of passions was introduced into human life and corrupted it. Thus our life became filled with much groaning…If, on the other hand, our condition of self-love is distressed by pain, then we give birth to anger, envy, hate, enmity, remembrance of past injuries, reproach, slander, oppression, sorrow, hopelessness, despair, the denial of providence, torpor, negligence, despondency, discouragement, faint-heartedness, grief out of season, weeping and wailing, dejection, lamentation, envy, jealousy, spite, and whatever else is produced by our inner disposition when it is deprived of occasions for pleasure. (1.2.15)

Now, many may contend with Maximus’ teaching by saying Jesus “groaned” (John 11:34) and “wept” (John 11:35). We must be careful to read these passages in a Christologically orthodox way.

We know that Jesus “was tempted in every way,” but we also know that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13). So, we must understand He was “tempted in every way, WITHOUT SIN” (the Greek does not necessarily include the word “but.”)

In other words, He was tempted in every blameless, without sin. sort of way—hunger, thirst, pain, privation—but not by sinful temptations such as sex, avarice, and the like. I have covered in detail elsewhere that Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed blameless passions, which were in fact not inherent to His sinless human nature as by nature flesh that is sinless, like Adam’s in paradise, experiences none of these things. However, Jesus did voluntarily experience these things as it was naturally possible for Him to. Adamite (prelapsarian) flesh is not glorified flesh—it can contain fallen aspects naturally because the fall did really occur in the prelapsarian flesh, turning it into postlapsarian flesh. Prelapsarian flesh tends towards immortality, but it is not truly immortal until it is glorified. Glorified flesh cannot experience the fall. So, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and others (if they exist) with resurrected bodies cannot fall into sin like Adam and Eve, because they have glorified bodies. This, for them, would be an impossibility.

This being said, we must be careful not to assume Jesus weeps for the same reason we grieve. We often grieve because we feel an intense, sorrow due to personal loss or some sort of self-love. Jesus did not experience this sort of sorrow, which Maximus states is from the passions.

Weeping that arises from the blameless passions is much different. For example, weeping from laughter is not the same as grief. Weeping from hitting one’s thumb with a hammer also is not the same as grief. Weeping out of compassion and empathy is also not the same as grief.

When Jesus wept, this does not mean he was weeping from grief—which clearly the
Theotokos did during her son’s crucifixion.

As a brief aside, while grief and weeping from such are blameworthy passions, only the consent of the will to despondency is sin. So, our Orthodox icons of the Theotokos and Saint John weeping at the crucifixion is not a terrible example of sin—this would be absurd. It is a demonstration of God’s people, with postlapsarian flesh, experiencing grief as we all do. They were not despondent and so did not sin. Saint Basil (Letter 260, Par 9) and Saint Maximus (Life of the Virgin, Par 53) both speak of the Theotokos having instant healing from precisely this predicament.

The preceding being said, how did Jesus weep? First, let’s plainly look at what the Scriptures indicate. In John 11:31 there are “Jews” consoling Mary and Martha. It is not clear whether they were professional mourners (Jer 9:17), but they wept with Mary and Martha (John 11:33) akin to those wailing for a ruler’s dead daughter in Matt 9:23. Clearly, community-mourning was some sort of social custom in Judea. Contextually, we must understand that Jesus was joining in this social custom, which He was obviously accustomed to. What he was not doing was grieving the death of Lazarus, as He was calm four days beforehand being fully cognizant of its occurrence. Clearly, Jesus was showing pity for Mary and those there, joining in the community mourning.

Year A of the 3-Year Lectionary Cycle?

The Latins are currently on Year C.

I am guessing this reflection was written a while ago, for Year A.

Tale of Two Adams: Scott Hahn Reflects on the First Sunday of Lent

Formed from the clay of the ground and filled with the breath of God’s own Spirit, Adam was a son of God (see Luke 3:38), created in his image (see Genesis 5:1-3). Crowned with glory, he was given dominion over the world and the protection of His angels (see Psalms 8:6-8; 91:11-13). He was made to worship God—to live not by bread alone but in obedience to every word that comes from the mouth of the Father.

Is Adam (son) of God? It would seem so. But is he a son of God in the same way that we are, having been reborn in Christ in Baptism and Chrismation? I don't think so. I don't think anyone was an (adopted) son of God in the Son before the Incarnation. Or if the righteous of the Old Testament were to be accounted sons of God, their sonship or their adoption was incomplete, until Christ had conquered death and was risen?

As for the question of obedience, which Adam failed to give -- the obedience that is essential for us to the glorification of the Father, is that the same as the sacrifice of Christ, or is it a part or consequence of the sacrifice (and thus not wholly identical with sacrifice)?

The Theory of Evolution and the Question of Death

Something to ponder after reading the following...

Russian Priest: Most Holy Men Denounced Evolution and So Should We “I’m not ashamed to be a daughter of the Heavenly Father. Let those whose ancestors are apes[1] be ashamed” by Fr. Valery Dukhanin (OrthoChristian)

Fr. Thomas Hopko on Priesthood

What is a Priest? An Orthodox Statement by Thomas Hopko

Jesus and Adam

The Patristic View of Sex or Marital Relations

Was there a consensus?

James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe
Google Books

Mentioned here by someone who is not particularly orthodox, iirc.

Still, is some sort of revision necessary, not for the basic precepts regarding our sexual powers, but with respect to our attitudees and understanding of the virtues pertaining to those powers and marital relations?

The conjugal act: as God originally intended or a concession to the Fall?

Infants and children may need sensible signs of affection and touch by parents for their emotional/mental health and to flourish, and this may be true of adults to an extent that we may not realize. Would we say that this is merely concupiscence, our desire to touch and to be touched? In so far as it is non-rational, maybe some would. (Concupiscence is not just a condition of the sexual appetite but of the appetite for nutrition as well, and what else? Hunger, indeed.) A consequence of the fall, an increased animality or manifestation of the "sensitive" aspect of the soul? Maybe, maybe not. But a real feature of human beings in this world, nonetheless. So why wouldn't it be the case with how men and women, or husbands and wives relate to one another? Is something to be condemned or criticized or merely permitted because it is "too" carnal, or not "spiritual" enough? What if there is a natural teleology to certain acts of touch that we may be tempted to dismiss because we think we shouldn't need them?

Before the Fall...

Would the body be indestructible or impervious to injury (a preternatural gift) or would it be subject to a miraculous healing immediately or mediately by some gift of God? If the former, would the emotion of fear (with respect to physical dangers) have existed?

Does the Patriarchate of Rome Really Need Another Synod?

The Forefathers' Sin

Adam's Sin

The Crown of Creation

You are the Crown of Creation: The Creation of Adam
Jesse Dominick
This fifth Bible Study on the book of Genesis covers the creation of Adam on the sixth day of Creation. In it we discuss several topics surrounding the creation of man, including what it means to be in the image of God, what it means that God "formed" man of the dust, the integral unity of man's body and soul, man's unique position as the summit of creation, and

Fr. Volpi Responds

Rorate Caeli: For the record: Letter of the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscan Friars

Fr. David gave a presentation on St. Maximus the Confessor - I definitely will need to read more, especially his use of "nature." For now it would have to be his writings in English translation. I should improve my Greek! Is there a study of his appropriation (and rejection) of Aristotle's teachings?