Creed question, "What does

[Daniel_J]

In the Nicene Creed we say,

** “…by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary…” **

What does that mean ?

 

[Johndigger]

In the Nicene Creed we say,

** “…by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary…” **

What does that mean ?

This is probably the biggest statement in the creed outside of the mystery of the Trinity.

It means the second person of the Trinity - The Son took on a human nature and was born of a virgin, this was the work of the Holy Spirit.

God became man.

JD

 

[Trishie]

It refers to how Jesus came to be conceived:

The Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and asked if she would consent to be mother of the saviour.
“Mary do not be afraid; you have won God’s favor. Listen, you are to conceive and bear a son and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High…”…Mary said to the Angel, “But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?”
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, "the angel answered, [Luke1:31-35]…

Later, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and told him, " Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:20-22

 

[Daniel_J]

Thank-you JD.

I see that you understand a more broader interpretation here, which continues in correlation with the Apostles Creed as it states,

** " He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" **

I guess that the concern that I was having with this particular verse is that in the Nicene version the actual wording used directly, literally in narrower context indicate that the “birthing” process itself was accomplished by "the power of the Holy Spirit"

Aquinas mentions this kind of subject in his Summa, see:

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

In the fifth paragraph under “Article 3” Thom mentions a “property of a glorified body” that Christ assumed while incarnate-visible;
namely, "subtlety in His birth, when “He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin”.

Interesting, because there it is in the Creed.

Dj

Trishie, I see that you have posted:

It refers to how Jesus came to be conceived:

My concern here is that this is Creed, which is like a total legalistic document. In essence when you write Creed you must nail the words to the table so-to-speak and actually state what you mean. You cannot say one thing then later state ‘this is what I mean’. Jd in his reply used perfect articulation which is possible to do in this Creed verse.

The Nicene Creed does not say “conceived”

 

[thistle]

Thank-you JD.

I see that you understand a more broader interpretation here, which continues in correlation with the Apostles Creed as it states,

** " He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" **

I guess that the concern that I was having with this particular verse is that in the Nicene version the actual wording used directly, literally in narrower context indicate that the “birthing” process itself was accomplished by "the power of the Holy Spirit"

Aquinas mentions this kind of subject in his Summa, see:

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

In the fifth paragraph under “Article 3” Thom mentions a “property of a glorified body” that Christ assumed while incarnate-visible;
namely, "subtlety in His birth, when “He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin”.

Interesting, because there it is in the Creed.

Dj

Trishie, I see that you have posted:

My concern here is that this is Creed, which is like a total legalistic document. In essence when you write Creed you must nail the words to the table so-to-speak and actually state what you mean. You cannot say one thing then later state ‘this is what I mean’. Jd in his reply used perfect articulation which is possible to do in this Creed verse.

The Nicene Creed does not say "conceived"

It doesn’t have to say conceived because it means the same thing and nobody could think otherwise. How could anyone think it referred to the birthing process and not the conception.

 

[Daniel_J]

How could anyone think it referred to the birthing process and not the conception.

Because that is what it says.

 

[brigid12]

The Catholic Church (and secular science and many Protestants) believe and teach that the life of a baby begins at conception. Ergo, this line of the Nicene Creed must speak of the conception of Jesus.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In the fifth paragraph under “Article 3” Thom mentions a “property of a glorified body” that Christ assumed while incarnate-visible;
namely, "subtlety in His birth, when “He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin”.

Daniel J,

You cited on of my all-time favorite questions of the Summa Theologica.

But, I wanted to point out that Aquinas does not take a favorable view towards the the idea that Christ assumed a property of the glorified body (in this case subtlety) at His birth. Rather Aquinas states in III, 28, 2 that:
Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the gift of “subtlety,” when He came forth from the closed womb of a virgin; and that He assumed the gift of “agility” when with dry feet He walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has been decided above (Article 14). For these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul’s glory on to the body, as we shall explain further on, in treating of glorified bodies (XP, 82): and it has been said above (13, 3, ad 1; 16, 1, ad 2) that before His Passion Christ “allowed His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it” (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power.

VC

 

[SenorSalsa]

This question comes because of poor english translations. The original latin is:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Which in the new, better translated text will be
“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.”

Which is pretty much a literal translation. And in this it no longer refers to birth at all, but rather the fact that God became Man. Which would have happened at the moment of conception

 

[thistle]

Because that is what it says.

It does not say that.
You must be the only Catholic in history to try to interpret it like that.
The birthing process?? Ridiculous!!

 

[drforjc]

This question comes because of poor english translations. The original latin is:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Which in the new, better translated text will be
“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.”

Which is pretty much a literal translation. And in this it no longer refers to birth at all, but rather the fact that God became Man. Which would have happened at the moment of conception

Absolutely correct.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Jesus became man, brought about by Mary’s conception, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Not the birthing process.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Daniel_J]

thistle thistle is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 5,991
Default Re: Creed question, "What does…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel J View Post
Because that is what it says.
It does not say that.
You must be the only Catholic in history to try to interpret it like that.
The birthing process?? Ridiculous!!

Errr… yeah, it says, ** “…by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born…” **

Somehow, you guys are saying that it doesn’t mean what it says.

Seinor Salsa explained it best, thank-you. I’ll take this explanation

SenorSalsa This question comes because of poor english translations. The original latin is:
“Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Which in the new, better translated text will be
“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.”

Which is pretty much a literal translation. And in this it no longer refers to birth at all, but rather the fact that God became Man. Which would have happened at the moment of conception

Dan

 

[thistle]

Errr… yeah, it says, ** “…by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born…” **

Somehow, you guys are saying that it doesn’t mean what it says.

Seinor Salsa explained it best, thank-you. I’ll take this explanation


Dan

Frankly, you are being ridiculous. “By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary” cannot by any stretch of the imagination refer to the birthing process. Nobody in their right mind could think that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Think of the Apostles Creed, which we all pray. It says in part,** “…I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered…”** It is because of the conception, brought about by the Holy Spirit, that Mary is called “Spouse of the Holy Spirit.” She remained a virgin through conception and birth. That God was involved in the entire process cannot be denied as the whole process was miraculous.

The Nicene Creed says,** “…By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary…”** This refers to the conception through birth. Not just the birth alone, but to the entire event.

People have asked how can she remain a virgin while giving birth. In answer, remember tht God, as Lord of creation is not subject to the laws of nature, but rather, nature is subject to him. If God created all that is by a single thought, anything else, in human terms, is easy by comparison.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[japhy]

This question comes because of poor english translations. The original latin is: “Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.”

Which in the new, better translated text will be “and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Which is pretty much a literal translation. And in this it no longer refers to birth at all, but rather the fact that God became Man. Which would have happened at the moment of conception

Even better would have been “and was made man”, since factus est is the “passive perfect” construction. Factus is passive (as opposed to active); it is easier to understand in the present tense: “he praises” (active), “he is praised” (passive).

Although, I suppose “became” and “was made” have the same passive feel in English: if I became angry, I was made angry by something.