Mary as spouse of the Holy spirit

  • Thread starter Thread starter marlo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marlo

Guest
Got this on the internet

IF Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit does that mean the Holy Spirit is also the Father of Jesus?
 
40.png
marlo:
Got this on the internet

IF Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit does that mean the Holy Spirit is also the Father of Jesus?
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus.
 
40.png
Apolonio:
tuo,

Have you been reading Svendsen?

Please read:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a79.htm
Click to expand...
I don’t even know who Svendsen is and I don’t see any need for me to read the link you provided as I’m not not confused about anything. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of Mary. St Maximilian Kolbe teaches that Mary became His Spouse at the moment of her Immaculate Conception in her mother, St Anne’s womb. But that’s not what was asked about in the original post. It is against Catholic theology to say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Mary.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I got confused because the link he provided, the little I read of it, seemed to say the same thing I was saying, i.e. that the Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus.

Are most Evangelical Protestants Nestorian? Just curious, if you know.
 
Are most Evangelical Protestants Nestorian? Just curious, if you know.
Click to expand...
They don’t claim to be, although it might be a logical consequence of their theological positions. Svendsen is one of the few that I’ve seen admit it for all practical purposes.
 
The idea that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is poetic licence, it carries no real theological weight.

In other words it is an inadequate attempt to explain something about salvation history that to us is rather incomprehensible.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal, co-eternal, ever existing and ever the same. The Holy Spirit has no “spouse”.

+T+
Michael
 
Wow - I am confused now.

I think you are saying:

The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in the Immaculate Conception. (I know this one is true!)

The Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus?

The Holy Spirit is not the spouse of Mary?

Thanks for the clarification…
 
Petic license or not,
The Holy Spirit did overshadow Mary and hence, by his power, she conceived. This is marital language, showing that Jesus was conceived. How exactly did it happen? no one knows.

We do know that Jeus cannot do anything that the Father does not do, because he is doing everything that the father does.
The same could be said of The Father.

The persons of the trinity are ONLY distinguishable to us on the grounds of their relationship to one another – not their actions, not in what they do/can do (eg. their ‘nature’).

So we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – an eternal family.
But whatever they do they do together.

Hence, the Father was involved in the act of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, as was the son himself.
If you try to attribute the action to the son, you end up with the mysterious thought that the son was his own father.
(If you make a mistake and insert – Jesus, then it goes to Jesus is his own father).

It is fine to say Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
It is equally fine to say Mary is the spouse of God.
But – the argument goes too far when it tries to divide God’s relationship and attribute fatherhood to anyone except the Father.

Theology attributes things to each of the persons, but this is poetic license. What is distinguishable between them is only their eternal relationship as persons. (hypostasis).
When Jesus became incarnate through the power of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis – and hiddenly he is incarnated in communion), one more thing happened. The person (hypostasis) Jesus became visible to us through the sacrament (so to speak) of his body.
 
Sorry about that tuo, I meant Marlo.

It seems to me that Svendsen’s ignorance comes from the fact that he does not acknowledge a distinction between nature and existence. The human nature of Jesus does not possess a created existence, but rather an uncreated existence, the Logos, the Son of God.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
The idea that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is poetic licence, it carries no real theological weight.

In other words it is an inadequate attempt to explain something about salvation history that to us is rather incomprehensible.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal, co-eternal, ever existing and ever the same. The Holy Spirit has no “spouse”.

+T+
Michael
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a good way to describe it. The problem is our words are so at a loss to adequeatly express our feelings, so we turn to family relationships to clarify aspects of the God/man relationship.

Speaking in a similar vein, Scott Hahn has come out with a declaration that the Holy Spirit is feminine in nature. This is nonesense, of course, and it’s disappointing to see he’s going off the deep end. One of the most obvious reasons it is nonesense is that it would seperate the trinity into two male and one female parts. That would seem to require us to change our understanding of Christianity into a polythiestic religion.
 
40.png
Apolonio:
It seems to me that Svendsen’s ignorance comes from the fact that he does not acknowledge a distinction between nature and existence. The human nature of Jesus does not possess a created existence, but rather an uncreated existence, the Logos, the Son of God.
Click to expand...
That’s playing it a bit loose with the terms. “Existence” should be “subsistence,” although one might argue that they could be used equivalently. My worry is that, based on what you’ve said here, one might erroneously conclude that Jesus was Uncreate according to His human nature.

I agree that Svendsen’s problem is the failure to distinguish nature and person (subsistence). He thinks of things like will and intelligence as aspects of personhood rather than nature, which St. Maximus Confessor roundly rebukes in his disputations with Pyrrhus.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
The idea that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is poetic licence, it carries no real theological weight.
Click to expand...
St Maximilian Kolbe says that the word “spouse” though true is to weak and faint to convey the profoundness and depth of the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit. You can read about his teachings in some books available from Marytown Press:
marytown.com/s-cart/form.phtml?g_intCatID=4
 
I don’t see a problem with using the word “existence”. Hypostasis is actually a much better term, but even the thomist tradition sees a real distinction between nature and existence. The human nature of Christ does not possess a created existence of its own.
 
The human nature of Christ does not possess a created existence of its own.
Click to expand...
With this explanatory sentence, I agree. This sentence makes it clear that you are not speaking of the nature as nature. To be clear myself, I didn’t intend to imply that you were misusing the term “existence,” only that its use might be mistaken for common parlance by someone unfamiliar with the idiom.
 
Jperean, writer,

That is clear as mud.

Jesus has two natures, human and divine.
The human nature was created and joined to the divine.
The divine nature was uncreated.

I am speaking of nature as what a person can do.
A human nature, means the object can do as a human does.
That is their power.

A divine nature, means the object can do as God does.

The PERSON of Jesus is singular – Jesus --.
The NATURE of Jesus is plural (God and Man).

The person is represented by the Greek word: Hypostatic, but the nature may* be desicribed by the Latin word substance.
(*St. Thomas — probably with qualifications that I don’t care about.)

(Although the words are synonyms from different languages, the Catholic Church saw fit to use them for different meanings.)

Substance talks about God in his unity. Hypostasis talks about God as persons. (I stop there, Nothing more to say).

As to subsist being the same as existance:
–Umm, yes that is the dictionary definition. :confused:

But, subsist does have a slightly different connotation in the way it is used.
sub = under.
subsistence living means to draw ones life from some source.
A church subsists in the Catholic Church would also likely suggest it is inferior to the church as a whole, since it draws its life from the Catholic Church.

One could argue … lots of things,
 
Continued,

As to the seperation of God into male and female parts:
Genesis claims the we are made in the image of God: Male and Female he created them.

Isn’t the word for Spirit (ruah) feminine in Hebrew anyway?
(I’m not an expert in hebrew, but I trust my professor.)
In Greek it is neuter.

Father and Son doesn’t divide the trinity, so how does masculinity femininity or any other ‘attribute’ do so?
I do believe God is beyond man and woman, for he is not the image of us, but we are the image of him. BUT – That there is some distorted image of him in us, I cannot deny and that could carry some idea of femininity. (Although not woman or man, with the exception of Jesus because of the incarnation).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top