'incarnate' of the Virgin Mary?

[Hokomai]

I noticed that the words of the Nicean Creed in the third edition of the Roman Missal changes ‘born of the Virgin Mary’ to ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’. I am sure ‘born of’ is good English, but ‘incarnate of’ seems wrong to me. I googled for another use of this word with ‘of’ but nothing turned up. Is this a totally new use? The shorter Oxford says it is an adjective only. I would have thought that ‘born’ in the creed was a verb form (past perfect) attached to a preposition. Surely to follow the same pattern we would have to say ‘incarnated’. I’m just asking about the English rather than the theology.

 

[ProVobis]

I noticed that the words of the Nicean Creed in the third edition of the Roman Missal changes ‘born of the Virgin Mary’ to ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’. I am sure ‘born of’ is good English, but ‘incarnate of’ seems wrong to me.

Incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine

How could “incarnate of” be wrong? “Born of the Virgin Mary” has never been officially codified by the Church, AFAIK.

 

[Trishie]

Everyone is born of their mother, but only Jesus is incarnate, God who received humanity through Mary. It is not unacceptable to use the language as it is used in the Nicean Creed.
The use of ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’ has been around for a long time, which does make it part of living English, therefore acceptable. Language is a living, not a dead and totally formalized form of human communication…but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

To say Jesus was ‘incarnated by" the Virgin Mary would be incorrect, "of’ is correct. A human cannot ‘incarnate’ God, the action is God’s.
It is not an easy concept to express, and the one used fulfils the purpose.
‘Incarnated of’ the Virgin Mary would seem to be clumsy. "Incarnate of’ expresses the concept smoothly…and English does not adhere rigidly to its own grammatical rules…or logical pronunciations for that matter.

 

[IrishAm]

Everyone is born of their mother, but only Jesus is incarnate, God who received humanity through Mary. It is not unacceptable to use the language as it is used in the Nicean Creed.
The use of ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’ has been around for a long time, which does make it part of living English, therefore acceptable. Language is a living, not a dead and totally formalized form of human communication…but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

To say Jesus was ‘incarnated by" the Virgin Mary would be incorrect, "of’ is correct. A human cannot ‘incarnate’ God, the action is God’s.
It is not an easy concept to express, and the one used fulfils the purpose.
‘Incarnated of’ the Virgin Mary would seem to be clumsy. "Incarnate of’ expresses the concept smoothly…and English does not adhere rigidly to its own grammatical rules…or logical pronunciations for that matter.

“Incarnate through” ?? Not often we have grammatical as well as theological discussions. Suspect there may be more of them over the next several months.

 

[NHInsider]

I haven’t seen the new Missal yet but I know that in England the clause has long been “He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary” so I had assumed that would be the phrasing of the new US version - is it not?

 

[Trishie]

“Incarnate through” ?? Not often we have grammatical as well as theological discussions. Suspect there may be more of them over the next several months.

‘Incarnate through’ also puts weight on the action of our blessed Mother. The use of ‘through’ can have other connotations, in the fuller sense of “through”, meaning by her power. Therefore, ‘‘of’’ is still the most appropriate preposition to use. Mary accepted, received, but the action of God becoming man was that of God’s Holy Spirit. No human can effect incarnation of God. Our Blessed Mother received God incarnate into her womb and she gave birth to His human form. The Church is not mistaken in choosing the preposition “of” in this instance.

 

[runningdude]

I noticed that the words of the Nicean Creed in the third edition of the Roman Missal changes ‘born of the Virgin Mary’ to ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’. I am sure ‘born of’ is good English, but ‘incarnate of’ seems wrong to me. I googled for another use of this word with ‘of’ but nothing turned up. Is this a totally new use? The shorter Oxford says it is an adjective only. I would have thought that ‘born’ in the creed was a verb form (past perfect) attached to a preposition. Surely to follow the same pattern we would have to say ‘incarnated’. I’m just asking about the English rather than the theology.

“Incarnare” was a verb in Latin, and my dictionary (built into my computer) says “incarnate” can also be used as a verb, so I’m not sure why the Oxford says its only an adjective.

 

[ProVobis]

“Incarnare” was a verb in Latin, and my dictionary (built into my computer) says “incarnate” can also be used as a verb, so I’m not sure why the Oxford says its only an adjective.

Good point.

My Latin dictionary doesn’t have either “carnare” or “incarnare” but the root “carn” has various usages, all of them having to do with the “flesh.” Also “incarnare” has a built-in preposition, if you will.

It’s tough to transfer that idea in order for it to make grammatical sense in the English so it seems best IMO just to use the cognate and a preposition approximate to that thought.

It works better in the Polish:

i za sprawą Ducha Świętego przyjął ciało z Maryi Dziewicy

 

[Hokomai]

Everyone is born of their mother, but only Jesus is incarnate, God who received humanity through Mary. It is not unacceptable to use the language as it is used in the Nicean Creed.
The use of ‘incarnate of the Virgin Mary’ has been around for a long time, which does make it part of living English, therefore acceptable. Language is a living, not a dead and totally formalized form of human communication…but thank you for sharing your thoughts.

To say Jesus was ‘incarnated by" the Virgin Mary would be incorrect, "of’ is correct. A human cannot ‘incarnate’ God, the action is God’s.
It is not an easy concept to express, and the one used fulfils the purpose.
‘Incarnated of’ the Virgin Mary would seem to be clumsy. "Incarnate of’ expresses the concept smoothly…and English does not adhere rigidly to its own grammatical rules…or logical pronunciations for that matter.

So can ‘incarnate of’ be used only of one person, Jesus?

 

[ProVobis]

So can ‘incarnate of’ be used only of one person, Jesus?

I would say yes, as I haven’t heard the word “incarnate” used in the English language for anyone else. But I’m sure sooner or later that will change as most meanings in English change over time by comedians, politicians, illiterates, and others. Maybe someone here already heard it being used “of” someone else.

 

[puzzleannie]

I . I’m just asking about the English rather than the theology.

perhaps it is well, simply looking at English grammar to look at breeding horses. the foal is described as by (stallion’s name) out of (dam’s name).

Christ is incarnate of the Virgin Mary in that he took on human nature and a human body from her human nature and human body. Personally I believe the grammatical construction “he became incarnate of” is correct. speaking as a former English major. the new translation makes explicity the lynchpin event of all human history which is the incarnation (divine nature taking on a human nature and entering a human body), rather than the birth, of the Savior.

 

[IrishAm]

‘Incarnate through’ also puts weight on the action of our blessed Mother. The use of ‘through’ can have other connotations, in the fuller sense of “through”, meaning by her power. Therefore, ‘‘of’’ is still the most appropriate preposition to use. Mary accepted, received, but the action of God becoming man was that of God’s Holy Spirit. No human can effect incarnation of God. Our Blessed Mother received God incarnate into her womb and she gave birth to His human form. The Church is not mistaken in choosing the preposition “of” in this instance.

I agree. I was thinking only of the physical property . . .