"is my belief that God's creation of each Man's individual Spirit (excepting that of the man Jesus, whom I'll address momentarily) is, like God's creation of each Man's individual Body, not a direct and immediate Creation (as is held by Soul-Creationist Calvinists and Roman Catholics) but rather an indirect and mediatorial Creation through the agency of Adam."
That's an interesting idea, but do you have any supporting citations from Scripture or the Fathers to justify this latter view?
One problem with this approach is found precisely when you come to deal with Jesus Christ. I know you attempt to deal with it when you say:
"However, the individual Spirit of the Man Jesus Christ, being NOT a created, derivative offspring of Adam's Spirit but rather the eternal Word which was conceived within Mary's flesh via the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit rather than natural generation, is obviously exempt from Adam's spiritual Fall."
However, this is not orthodox Catholic (and Orthodox) Christology in that Christ was both fully God and fully man. Consequently when the Word assumed humanity, He assumed it fully - BOTH BODY AND SOUL. Whatever was not assumed was not saved - He was made like us in all things except for sin.
It seems to me that you are saying that in the incarnation, the Divinity of the Word replaced the soul of man rather than assuming it. This would be Apollinarianism as condemned by Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381:
"We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man."
It was a precursor of Monophysitism and Monothelitism, and was negated by Ephesus in 431:
"..the Word, uniting to Himself in His person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."
..and by Chalcedon on 451:
"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."
Consequently, in order to be fully human, Christ must have assumed a created soul, just as He assumed a created body.
Kolokotronis and kosta50, can you confirm that this is consistent with Orthodox belief as well?
OP, if I have not understood correctly what you were saying about Christ's incarnation in the Virgin's womb, then please explain. I'm sure you're not an Apollinarist really! ;)
That was certainly my impression: fully God and fully Man, two natures, one Person. I would like to observe here also, that the Son of Man also inherited human mortality and therefore propensity towards passion, which he resisted. With human nature He assumed the consequences of our Fall -- but not the sin. This is consistent with the Orthodox view of the Man's fall from God.
"Kolokotronis and kosta50, can you confirm that this is consistent with Orthodox belief as well? "
You are right on the money, Deacon! And the implications of this are extensive when it comes to theosis.
Sure.
Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on "Traducianism" (note: within the terms described in the article, I would describe myself as a "Generationist" Traducian rather than a "Materialist" Traducian) notes several prominent Fathers amongst the Traducians, most notably Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine himself. Further, Jerome relates that Traducianism was the majority view of the Eastern Fathers, although CE reserves that his opinion may be exaggerated:
One problem with this approach is found precisely when you come to deal with Jesus Christ.... It seems to me that you are saying that in the incarnation, the Divinity of the Word replaced the soul of man rather than assuming it. This would be Apollinarianism as condemned by Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381:
No. I think if you'll examine what I am saying, you'll find that I am advocating the polar opposite of Apollinarianism.
Let us begin by considering what a "Man" is, according to Scripture: a "Man" is a Personal Spirit made in the Image of God which is enfleshed in a Personal Body (As to his "soul", I am a Bipartite anthropologist and generally consider the term "a living soul" to refer simply to Man's whole personal entity, spirit and flesh; but we may also understand that term in a Tripartite anthropology to mean the "immaterial" functions of Mind, the Emotions, etc., which exist at the nexus of spirit and flesh).
Now then: let us consider further that the Second Person of the Godhead, the Son, is THE original, only-begotten Imago Dei (Hebrews 1:3). When we remember this, it becomes evident that the Race of "Man" was always designed as a Vessel for the Incarnation. God had the Incarnation in mind when He designed the nature of Man as an Imago Dei Personal Spirit enfleshed in a Personal Body.
Thus, when the Son -- being Himself THE original, only-begotten Imago Dei was enfleshed in the body formed for Him of the flesh of Mary, He by definition was a True Man:
Of course, the Personal Bodies and Minds and "Souls" of Men being subject to limitations (finite brains, finite powers, mortality after the Fall, etc.), the Bible teaches that the Son undertook these limitations upon Himself when He became enfleshed as a Man:
Now, don't ask me to explain precisely how the omnipotent, omniscient Second Person of the Godhead chooses to voluntarily "self-limit" Himself within a finite vessel for thirty-odd years or so -- but the Bible teaches that He did; and a cross-reference of Genesis 1,2 and Hebrews 1 suggests that the Race of "Man" was always designed from the beginning as a Vessel for precisely that Incarnational Purpose; so, we must simply believe that it is so.
Not so the Heretic Apollinaris. Teaching that "Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos taking the place of this last", I have no idea how he would address such Scriptures as Luke 2:40,52 -- which clearly indicate that Christ did have a "human rational mind", the Omniscient Son somehow choosing to voluntarily self-limit His native Omniscience (or, at least, His expression thereof) within a human physical brain such that He was able to "increase in wisdom and stature" as to His humanity.
However, the difficulty of reconciling the heretical Apollinarian teaching with Luke 2:40,52 isn't even the main issue, as I see it.
Catholic Encyclopedia strikes at the root of the issue when it informs us that:
As you can see, this is the exact opposite of what I am saying:
Thus, Apollinaris fell into the Heresy of denying Christ's True Humanity, because he assumed that God and Man are, by nature, Two essentially-incommensurate spiritual entities -- and did not stop to consider what "Man" simply is: The Imago Dei enfleshed.
That being said, I heartily agree with the Anathema (properly and correctly) pronounced against the Apollinarian Heresy:
It was simply absurd for the Apollinarians to speak of "the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul". When one understands the Biblical teaching of the Nature of Man, the "human rational and intellective soul" of Man, as simply being an Imago Dei Personal Spirit enfleshed in a Personal Body -- one understands that when THE (original, only-begotten) Imago Dei was enfleshed in the Personal Body prepared for Him of the flesh of Mary, He was by definition a True Man:
The Race of Man, his whole entity, his "soul", being designed *by nature* for the Incarnation, being designed *by nature* as a Vessel for the Enfleshment of the Imago Dei -- then how could Jesus be anything BUT a True Man?
Hope that helps to clear things up.
Best, OP