Question on Communio Personarum (TOB)

[djeter]

I always thought God created man and then created woman. However following John Paul II’s analysis here I begin to see that God created man which was **the creation of a unity of two beings: man and woman. **

The complete and definitive creation of “man” (subjected first to the experience of original solitude) is expressed in giving life to that *communio personarum * that man and woman form which I find key here.

Am I extrapolating too much to say that Marriage is the celebration of that *communio personarum *which can only be achieved by a man and a woman? I keep reading “marriage is restricted to between a man and a woman” but never got to the why of it. This appears to be the answer – as expressed by John Paul II in one of this Theology of the Body teachings.

Unless someone sees it different…Note that I am not asking you to affirm that marriage is formed solely between a man and a woman but am asking the why of it. Read the TOB excerpt and respond if you would be so kind.

Thanks

dj

 

[JohnDamian]

Am I extrapolating too much to say that Marriage is the celebration of that communio personarum which can only be achieved by a man and a woman?

You are not extrapolating too much.

Marraige is the celebration of the unity and communion of persons, fulfilling the natural desires against solitude; and the natural need for increasing the community of persons through the generation of interdependant family.

 

[Julian0404]

djeter -

GOD did create man before woman, in fact “wo-man” translates to “of/from - man”, so you are not confused.

GOD’s creation of man led to the creation of the unity of/between/within man and woman. As Scott Hahn teaches, the love between a man and women will have to be given a name with the birth of their first child. The Unity of the man and woman leads to the family, which is the earthly model of the trinity, three persons (man,woman,child - in one Unity of the family).

 

[djeter]

You are not extrapolating too much.

Marraige is the celebration of the unity and communion of persons, fulfilling the natural desires against solitude; and the natural need for increasing the community of persons through the generation of interdependant family.

I’m looking for the celebration of *communio personarum * because a communion of persons could include two male persons whereas the latin phrase appears to only mean a man and woman.

I’m also looking for a reference to a Church document. I’ve got the TOB but need to relate it to marriage.

dj

 

[djeter]

djeter -

GOD did create man before woman, in fact “wo-man” translates to “of/from - man”, so you are not confused.

GOD’s creation of man led to the creation of the unity of/between/within man and woman. As Scott Hahn teaches, the love between a man and women will have to be given a name with the birth of their first child. The Unity of the man and woman leads to the family, which is the earthly model of the trinity, three persons (man,woman,child - in one Unity of the family).

Can you connect the Scott Hahn to a church document? And does the unity between/within man/woman mean there is no such unity between men or women?

dj

 

[Betterave]

I always thought God created man and then created woman. However following John Paul II’s analysis here I begin to see that God created man which was **the creation of a unity of two beings: man and woman. **

The complete and definitive creation of “man” (subjected first to the experience of original solitude) is expressed in giving life to that *communio personarum * that man and woman form which I find key here.

Am I extrapolating too much to say that Marriage is the celebration of that *communio personarum *which can only be achieved by a man and a woman? I keep reading “marriage is restricted to between a man and a woman” but never got to the why of it. This appears to be the answer – as expressed by John Paul II in one of this Theology of the Body teachings.

Unless someone sees it different…Note that I am not asking you to affirm that marriage is formed solely between a man and a woman but am asking the why of it. Read the TOB excerpt and respond if you would be so kind.

Thanks

dj

It seems to me you’re reading too much into it. I don’t see any reason to connect the ‘restriction’ (I would prefer the nature) of marriage to a man and a woman to the notion of communio personarum. There is a communion of persons which is particular to marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is the only form, or the normative form, or the highest form (regardless of the sex of the individuals involved).

 

[djeter]

It seems to me you’re reading too much into it. I don’t see any reason to connect the ‘restriction’ (I would prefer the nature) of marriage to a man and a woman to the notion of communio personarum. There is a communion of persons which is particular to marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is the only form, or the normative form, or the highest form (regardless of the sex of the individuals involved).

communio personarum as defined by John Paul II (see link) is an attribute of the union of persons between a man and woman.

“There is a communion of persons which is particular to marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is the only form, or the normative form, or the highest form (regardless of the sex of the individuals involved).”

Can you link your statement to a Church document or the Catechism or are you simply gracing us with an opinion?

dj

 

[Betterave]

communio personarum as defined by John Paul II (see link) is an attribute of the union of persons between a man and woman.

“There is a communion of persons which is particular to marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is the only form, or the normative form, or the highest form (regardless of the sex of the individuals involved).”

Can you link your statement to a Church document or the Catechism or are you simply gracing us with an opinion?

dj

I’m gracing you with my exegetical take on the document you linked. I don’t really understand your original argument, but I don’t see it supported by the document. John Paul II does talk about the *‘primary *form’ of communion of persons:

“But God did not create man as a solitary being, for from the beginning “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion” (Gaudium et Spes 12).

But the sense of ‘primary’ seems obviously not to be exclusionary. Unless you disagree?

Anyway, I’m sure I don’t need to reference a Church document to make the case that the highest form of communion of persons is not (per se) that found in marriage between a man and a woman. Do you actually doubt that this ‘opinion’ is well-founded?

 

[djeter]

I’m gracing you with my exegetical take on the document you linked. I don’t really understand your original argument, but I don’t see it supported by the document. John Paul II does talk about the *‘primary *form’ of communion of persons:

“But God did not create man as a solitary being, for from the beginning “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion” (Gaudium et Spes 12).

But the sense of ‘primary’ seems obviously not to be exclusionary. Unless you disagree?

Anyway, I’m sure I don’t need to reference a Church document to make the case that the highest form of communion of persons is not (per se) that found in marriage between a man and a woman. Do you actually doubt that this ‘opinion’ is well-founded?

The sense of primary implies that other forms of communion are secondary. What forms of communion would you posit to be the highest? I’m assuming here that two males or two females would not complement or complete each other (from the standpoint of potential) that *ipso facto * the way a man and woman do. You appear to disagree with that. I’m looking to see this explained in terms of a Catholic anthropology, hence the request for a theological or Church document basis.

dj

 

[Betterave]

The sense of primary implies that other forms of communion are secondary. What forms of communion would you posit to be the highest? I’m assuming here that two males or two females would not complement or complete each other (from the standpoint of potential) that *ipso facto * the way a man and woman do. You appear to disagree with that. I’m looking to see this explained in terms of a Catholic anthropology, hence the request for a theological or Church document basis.

dj

Primary and secondary in what sense? In context I would say *historically *(in terms of creation history). *Ontologically *the primary (highest) form of communio personarum is surely intra-Trinitarian, is it not?

Two males or two females cannot complement each other in the way a man and a woman do in marriage, obviously. But that is just because they cannot marry, because they lack sexual complementarity. It would seem to be an extraordinary claim, for which I see no evidence, that a lack of sexual complementarity implies a lack of interpersonal complementarity. Is this your claim?

 

[djeter]

Primary and secondary in what sense? In context I would say *historically *(in terms of creation history). *Ontologically *the primary (highest) form of communio personarum is surely intra-Trinitarian, is it not?

Two males or two females cannot complement each other in the way a man and a woman do in marriage, obviously. But that is just because they cannot marry, because they lack sexual complementarity. It would seem to be an extraordinary claim, for which I see no evidence, that a lack of sexual complementarity implies a lack of interpersonal complementarity. Is this your claim?

It’s not my “claim” but a question I had concerning the TOB and it is why is the *communio personarum *described as the “primary” form of the communion of persons? Does it support the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman? Is that why? Are the male/male female/female combinations then secondary? Is that what is implied here?

I don’t think a lack of sexual complementarity implies a lack of interpersonal complementarity but that’s not the issue here (IMHO).

dj

 

[Betterave]

It’s not my “claim” but a question I had concerning the TOB and it is why is the *communio personarum ***[that is characteristic of marriage?] **described as the “primary” form of the communion of persons? Does it support the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Well my question in response to your question is: why are you suggesting that it does? Can you point to textual evidence to that effect? I didn’t notice any.

Is that why? Are the male/male female/female combinations then secondary? Is that what is implied here?

I’m afraid I don’t understand your questions. Is what why? Is it why what? Secondary in respect to what (i.e., in what sense of ‘secondary’)?

I don’t think a lack of sexual complementarity implies a lack of interpersonal complementarity but that’s not the issue here (IMHO).

Okay, maybe I’m confused as to what the issue here is supposed to be.

 

[djeter]

Well my question in response to your question is: why are you suggesting that it does? Can you point to textual evidence to that effect? I didn’t notice any.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your questions. Is what why? Is it why what? Secondary in respect to what (i.e., in what sense of ‘secondary’)?

Okay, maybe I’m confused as to what the issue here is supposed to be.

Yes, there is a lot of confusion in what your write and I can’t unsort it, I’m afraid. Thanks for your reply.

dj

 

[Betterave]

Yes, there is a lot of confusion in what your write and I can’t unsort it, I’m afraid. Thanks for your reply.

dj

I have to disagree, I think the confusion is in what you have written and I was asking you to clarify that - there shouldn’t be anything confusing about that. This was written in a confusing way though, I will grant:

Is that why? Are the male/male female/female combinations then secondary? Is that what is implied here?

I’m afraid I don’t understand your questions. Is what why? Is it why what? Secondary in respect to what (i.e., in what sense of ‘secondary’)?

Maybe this will clarify:

YOU: Is that why?
ME: Is what why? Is that why what?

YOU: Are the male/male female/female combinations then secondary?
ME: Secondary in what sense?

YOU: Is that what is implied here?
ME: Where?

 

[djeter]

I have to disagree, I think the confusion is in what you have written and I was asking you to clarify that - there shouldn’t be anything confusing about that. This was written in a confusing way though, I will grant:

Maybe this will clarify:

YOU: Is that why?
ME: Is what why? Is that why what?

YOU: Are the male/male female/female combinations then secondary?
ME: Secondary in what sense?

YOU: Is that what is implied here?
ME: Where?

Thank you for clarifying but I really don’t want to go down this road. I was looking for an answer to a question not a discussion of my interpretation (or anyone else’s) of John Paul II’s comments on *Communio Personarum *in the TOB

Thanks

dj