Speculation about the unfallen

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty:

The Incarnation, as we understand it, was so that God could become the eternal Passover Lamb.

That is a common opinion held by many Catholic theologians. But that is not the only Catholic theological opinion that a Catholic can hold.

Controversy as to the Conditioned or Unconditioned Predestination of the Incarnation

There is a controversy between the Thomists and the Scotists as to whether the prime motive of the Incarnation of the Son of God was the redemption of mankind, so that without the Fall of the first parents the Incarnation would not have taken place (conditioned predestination of the Incarnation) or whether it was the glory of God. In the Scotist view, the Son of God, in order to crown the work of Creation, would have become man even without the Fall, but in an impassible body (unconditioned or absolute predestination of the Incarnation). …

The Scotists find it inappropriate that sin, which God hates, should be the occasion of the most glorious Revelation of God. ….According to the Scotist view, all grace, not only the grace of fallen mankind, but the grace of man in Paradise, and the grace of the angels, derives from the merits of the God-Man. Thus Christ assumes a central all-transcending position in the Divine world-plan.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine

 

[Les_Richardson]

Ghosty:

That’s no sacrifice if it is not done in a sacrificial way. God adding a human nature to Itself is not in and of itself a sacrifice. It was God dying for us in a painful, utterly humiliating and human way that was a sacrifice…

I tend to disagree with that first statement. The reason is that Jesus Christ became human, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word that breathed life into creation, became a part of the creation permanently.

That is to say, although God did not lesson Himself by the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, He did voluntarily limit Himself to the human person of Jesus. He will always be the God-man. When he resurrected he appeared to the twelve and many others as well, in a body, distinctly human but with capabilities (going through walls) well beyond our capacity.

My real curiosity is whether we will have resurrected bodies like His or is His body unique? I know that we will be perfected, and we will finally arrive at the new heaven and new earth as physical beings, the way we were intended. But will Jesus’ body be unique from ours because he is God? We will find out then, and I can say it will be a great privilege to meet and greet Him face to face.

That’s another interesting question. Will He shake our hands? Will He embrace us as brothers and sisters? Will we be so over-awed by Him that we will fall at His feet?

It is hard to picture, but I can hardly wait. To tell you the truth, if I can just be in the same room with Him, I’ll be happy. Just find me a corner out of the way so I can see and hear Him speak. I understand how Zaccheus felt.

Sorry, this is way off track from this thread. But its so much fun to speculate.

 

[Matt16_18]

nobody:

Whoa, this hit me like a brick! Could you please tell which saints believed this? I would like to read their writings.

Father Schmöger, in his biography Anne Catherine Emmerich, has an astounding quote from St. Hildegarde about the existence of the terrestrial paradise: The Fathers tell us that paradise still exists in all its first beauty…. The terrestrial paradise was not created for pure spirits, but for man composed of soul and body; consequently, it is provided with whatever is requisite not only for his sustenance but also for his safeguard against sickness and death, by virtue of the state of original justice in which he was first created. The creatures of this magnificent abode, its animals and plants, belong to a higher order, as much elevated above those of earth as the body of Adam before his sin was superior to his fallen posterity. And as the body of Adam was a real body of flesh and blood, not pure spirit, so, too, paradise is not a celestial or purely spiritual region, but a material place connected with human nature and earth itself. … St. Hildegarde says on this subject in her Scivias, Lib. I., visio II. :

“When Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, a wall of light was raised around it, and the Divine Power effaced from it all marks of their sin. It was fortified, as it were, by this great light so that no enemy could reach it; but by this God also testified that the transgression which had taken place in paradise should in time be effaced by His mercy. Paradise still exists, a region of joy, blooming in all its pristine loveliness, and imparting abundant fruitfulness to the sterile earth. As the soul communicates life and strength to the body it inhabits, so the earth receives from paradise her supreme vitality; the darkness and corruption of sin, which shroud this miserable world cannot entirely check its influence.”

Carl E. Schmöger, C.SS.R., The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Volume 1, pp. 155-156, TAN Books and Publishers, INC., Rockford, Illinois​

 

[Les_Richardson]

Matt16_18:

Father Schmöger, in his biography Anne Catherine Emmerich, has an astounding quote from St. Hildegarde about the existence of the terrestrial paradise: The Fathers tell us that paradise still exists in all its first beauty…. The terrestrial paradise was not created for pure spirits, but for man composed of soul and body; consequently, it is provided with whatever is requisite not only for his sustenance but also for his safeguard against sickness and death, by virtue of the state of original justice in which he was first created. The creatures of this magnificent abode, its animals and plants, belong to a higher order, as much elevated above those of earth as the body of Adam before his sin was superior to his fallen posterity. And as the body of Adam was a real body of flesh and blood, not pure spirit, so, too, paradise is not a celestial or purely spiritual region, but a material place connected with human nature and earth itself. … St. Hildegarde says on this subject in her Scivias, Lib. I., visio II. :

“When Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, a wall of light was raised around it, and the Divine Power effaced from it all marks of their sin. It was fortified, as it were, by this great light so that no enemy could reach it; but by this God also testified that the transgression which had taken place in paradise should in time be effaced by His mercy. Paradise still exists, a region of joy, blooming in all its pristine loveliness, and imparting abundant fruitfulness to the sterile earth. As the soul communicates life and strength to the body it inhabits, so the earth receives from paradise her supreme vitality; the darkness and corruption of sin, which shroud this miserable world cannot entirely check its influence.”

Carl E. Schmöger, C.SS.R., The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Volume 1, pp. 155-156, TAN Books and Publishers, INC., Rockford, Illinois
​

Jesus did say to the repentent criminal on the cross next to Him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43

 

[Matt16_18]

Nobody

It is this quote from St. Hildegarde that makes me imagine the terrestrial paradise as dwelling in a “parallel universe”aradise still exists, a region of joy, blooming in all its pristine loveliness, and imparting abundant fruitfulness to the sterile earth. As the soul communicates life and strength to the body it inhabits, so the earth receives from paradise her supreme vitality …
The parallel universe that contains the terrestrial paradise is a physical universe that is not just existing in splendid isolation by itself in its pristine purity – it is also connected to this universe in a mysterious way.

Father Schmöger mentions that St. Lidwina’s guardian angel once brought to her a branch from a plant growing in paradise that gave her relief from her suffering (St. Lidwina was a victim soul). He also briefly mentions that St. Colette used to be visited by an animal from Paradise as a reward for her purity - “a charming little animal, dazzlingly white and perfectly tame when with her.” It seems that God’s grace can open up portals between these two parallel universes to allow the physical things of paradise to enter into our universe. (I hope you can excuse my use of phrases like “portals” and “parallel universes” - they are the best words that I can think of that express what I am trying to say). I see the phenomena of the incorruptible saints related to the connection between our universe and the universe that contains the terrestrial paradise. Actually, I see a lot of things when I meditate on St. Hildegarde’s teaching …

I find that meditating on the connection between the parallel universes to be very fruitful. I imagine that at the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor, that Peter, James and John saw Paradise bleeding through into our world. At the end of time, Peter says that this world will be consumed by fire. As the holy fire melts away our universe, the parallel universe of Paradise will be manifest to the saints whose name is written in the book of life. At least, that is way that I see it happening.

The continuing existence of the terrestrial Paradise keeps me from losing any sleep over questions regarding evolution. Adam and Eve lost their immortal bodies when they were cast out of the terrestrial paradise. (Perhaps they dwelled in Paradise for hundreds of billion years by our way of reckoning time – there is nothing in the Bible that mentions how long they lived as immortal beings in Paradise.) In some mysterious manner, Adam and Eve received mortal bodies when they were banished to this universe where death and decay touches everything. Adam’s immortal body was created out of the dust of Paradise – to say that the DNA of his mortal body came from existing organic chemicals in the Fallen world is rather trivial thing to say, IMO.

 

[Matt16_18]

Les Richardson:

Jesus did say to the repentent criminal on the cross next to Him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43

I believe that the paradise that good thief was taken to by Jesus is a different place than the terrestrial paradise. St. Dismas and Jesus descended to the dead to Abraham’s bosom, a pleasant place in the abode of the dead where the souls of the just lived without their bodies. OTH, Elijah *ascended * into the heavens with his physical body. St. Hildegarde writes that Elijah and Enoch were taken to the terrestrial paradise, and that they will return to earth to suffer martyrdom as the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation.

 

[Ghosty]

Matt16_18: It’s not the only view taken in Catholic doctrine, but it is certainly the most informed view in the sense that it takes the whole of the Scriptures and synthesizes them, Old and New. It is based on a careful study of ancient Jewish beliefs and expectations, matched with scholarship of the Old Testament. The Scotist position amounts, roughly, to an idea based on distaste for Old Testament theology. This doesn’t make either view wrong, but it certainly gives the Passover view more Biblical weight.

There is no set doctrine on the matter, regardless, and both views fall within Catholic teaching. One simply grounds itself in much older traditions, and coming to Jesus through Judaism, I find the more Old Testament centered view to be more tasteful and more grounded. We can’t say what God would have done had we not Fallen, after all, but we CAN say what God did do, which is Incarnate as a man in order to serve as the “lamb that takes away the sins of the world.” I personally see no reason to add to this based on a distaste for the implications of God’s actions.

 

[Ghosty]

Les Richardson: I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that the Son truly limited Himself by becoming a man. We know that the Son is not less now than He was before the Incarnation, because you can’t take away from the Infinite God. If God can’t be diminished, then the sacrifice would have to come from an experience, the Passion for example, and not in the sense of giving up a part of oneself.

This goes back to the whole “was Jesus omniscient” debate, and what Jesus meant by not knowing certain things despite being fully God, and God being omniscient. The best explaination I have heard is that the Son was not limited in any way by becoming human, but at the same time didn’t take as His purpose to reveal every little detail to the world. Therefore the Divine Knowledge of those things not to be revealed was not “loaded” into the human brain of the Son, in the same sense that my full knowledge isn’t loaded into every word I speak. The term “Word” is very important here, because it indicates a sending forth of knowledge. Jesus was the Word as well as being fully God, and therefore only said that which was being issued forth from God. There wasn’t a qualitative limiting so much as a quantitative limiting; God was showing only those things God wanted to show, without losing anything in the process. The Son didn’t cease being God through the Incarnation, and therefore didn’t lose anything, but the Incarnation was not designed to bring the full experience of the Son to humanity, and therefore we only saw those parts of the Son that God wished to show.

 

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty

It’s not the only view taken in Catholic doctrine, but it is certainly the most informed view in the sense that it takes the whole of the Scriptures and synthesizes them, Old and New.

That is your own personal opinion. Obviously, I don’t share it.

 

[Ghosty]

You may not share the view, but I’m hard pressed to see why you would think it’s equally or less informed than the other. The role of the Messiah is written into the very fabric of the Old Testament. That is what I mean by it being more informed; it clings much closer to the teachings of the Old Testament, the deposit of Faith that led to the Messiah in the first place.

I certainly don’t have a problem with differing views, but I personally take the Passover Lamb approach because it’s the most frequently attested to in Scripture itself.

 

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty

You may not share the view, but I’m hard pressed to see why you would think it’s equally or less informed than the other.

We haven’t really discussed why I hold my opinions … I just more or less pointed out that I am sympathetic to the Scotist POV. The reason why I hold this postion has to do with a lot of prayer.

The role of the Messiah is written into the very fabric of the Old Testament.

I agree. The very first promise of a Messiah is the Protoevangelium of Gen. 3:15. Adam and Eve commit an act of willful disobedience to God, and then God promises Adam and Eve that they are not without hope. It is only because Adam and Eve chose to be sinful that they needed a savior to save them from their sinfulness. But God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve was for their obedience, not their disobedience. If Adam and Eve had been obedient, they would not have needed a savior to save them from a sin that they never committed.

But even if Adam and Eve had been obedient instead of disobedient, they still would have needed the Incarnation to become “fully divinized”. Adam and Eve were predestined by God to receive an elevated state of holiness that was above the holiness of original justice that they were born in.

CCC 398 … Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory.
That is what I mean by it being more informed; it clings much closer to the teachings of the Old Testament, the deposit of Faith that led to the Messiah in the first place.

It seems to me that all you are saying is this: that because Adam and Eve fell, they needed a savior, and that the OT witnesses to that fact that fallen man needs a savior. I completely agree that the OT witnesses that God promises salvation from sin through the promised Messiah. We have no disagreement on this point.

Adam and Eve and their progeny were predestined by God to become fully “divinized”. That was/is God’s perfect will for human beings. The fact that Adam and Eve sinned, did not change God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve, nor did it change God’s perfect will for their progeny. Men don’t change God’s perfect will by their sins. It would be strange indeed to think that we can change God’s will by sinning!

God allowed Adam and Eve to be disobedient in his permissive will, but it was never God’s perfect will that Adam and Eve should commit sin. God didn’t reward Adam and Eve and their progeny with divine Sonship because of their sinfulness. That fallen men can realize divine Sonship is a glorious witness to God’s mercy, and it is also a witness to the fact that our sin does not change God’s perfect will.

I personally take the Passover Lamb approach because it’s the most frequently attested to in Scripture itself.

Who denies that Jesus in the expiation for all sin, or that Scripture witnesses to that reality? Not me.

 

[Ghosty]

I think the main difference is that I personally see no reason to hold to a belief about the Incarnation that I don’t see expressly backed up in Scripture. This is hardly to say that your view is false; far from it. I’m just more “conservative” in my approach to this particular issue.

 

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty:

I think the main difference is that I personally see no reason to hold to a belief about the Incarnation that I don’t see expressly backed up in Scripture. This is hardly to say that your view is false; far from it. I’m just more “conservative” in my approach to this particular issue.

Where is the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived expressly backed up in scriptures? I suppose that one could argue that the Thomists were being “conservative” in denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, while the Scotist were being more, uh … liberal? radical? innovative?

Whatever word that you that you would want to stick to the Scotists’ position regarding the immaculate conception of Mary, it is an undeniable fact that the Scotist positon has become a solemnly defined dogma of the Church.

I find that the Scotists position on the Unconditioned Predestination of the Incarnation to naturally follow the logic of the Scotists. But be that as it may, what do you think about St. Hildegarde’s quote that I posted? This quote is germane to the original question that Racer X has asked.

Do you believe that the terrestrial paradise still exists as it was before the Fall, and that the plants and animals in the terrestrial paradise are in some mysterious way imparting vitality to the plants and animals in this fallen universe?

 

[Les_Richardson]

Ghosty

You may not share the view, but I’m hard pressed to see why you would think it’s equally or less informed than the other.

We haven’t really discussed why I hold my opinions … I just more or less pointed out that I am sympathetic to the Scotist POV. The reason why I hold this postion has to do with a lot of prayer.

The role of the Messiah is written into the very fabric of the Old Testament.

I agree. The very first promise of a Messiah is the Protoevangelium of Gen. 3:15. Adam and Eve commit an act of willful disobedience to God, and then God promises Adam and Eve that they are not without hope. It is only because Adam and Eve chose to be sinful that they needed a savior to save them from their sinfulness. But God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve was for their obedience, not their disobedience. If Adam and Eve had been obedient, they would not have needed a savior to save them from a sin that they never committed.

But even if Adam and Eve had been obedient instead of disobedient, they still would have needed the Incarnation to become “fully divinized”. Adam and Eve were predestined by God to receive an elevated state of holiness that was above the holiness of original justice that they were born in.

CCC 398 … Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. That is what I mean by it being more informed; it clings much closer to the teachings of the Old Testament, the deposit of Faith that led to the Messiah in the first place.

It seems to me that all you are saying is this: that because Adam and Eve fell, they needed a savior, and that the OT witnesses to that fact that fallen man needs a savior. I completely agree that the OT witnesses that God promises salvation from sin through the promised Messiah. We have no disagreement on this point.

Adam and Eve and their progeny were predestined by God to become fully “divinized”. That was/is God’s perfect will for human beings. The fact that Adam and Eve sinned, did not change God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve, nor did it change God’s perfect will for their progeny. Men don’t change God’s perfect will by their sins. It would be strange indeed to think that we can change God’s will by sinning!

God allowed Adam and Eve to be disobedient in his permissive will, but it was never God’s perfect will that Adam and Eve should commit sin. God didn’t reward Adam and Eve and their progeny with divine Sonship because of their sinfulness. That fallen men can realize divine Sonship is a glorious witness to God’s mercy, and it is also a witness to the fact that our sin does not change God’s perfect will.

I personally take the Passover Lamb approach because it’s the most frequently attested to in Scripture itself.

Who denies that Jesus in the expiation for all sin, or that Scripture witnesses to that reality? Not me.

So I guess what you are saying (to oversimplify perhaps) is that what happened (the fall, original sin, the Incarnation as Passover lamb, etc.) is plan B, whereas plan A would have included Incarnation anyway. Interesting. Can you refer some link to Scotist POV? This is new to me, but I would like to read more.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Supplimental;

I have looked briefly at texts that are dubious in their origin and theology purported to be written parallel to the Pentateuch, and are definitely not canon, in which the proposition was made that Satan rebelled because he would not serve humanity. That would go to the proposition that man was always destined by God to be divinized and Satan would then have a backseat, so to speak, as merely an angel.

I need to research those sources again, it’s been a long time.

 

[davidv]

Matt16_18:

Where is the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived expressly backed up in scriptures?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” None the less, "In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” (also from the Catholic Encyclopedia) newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[Matt16_18]

Les Richardson:

So I guess what you are saying (to oversimplify perhaps) is that what happened (the fall, original sin, the Incarnation as Passover lamb, etc.) is plan B, whereas plan A would have included Incarnation anyway. Interesting. Can you refer some link to Scotist POV? This is new to me, but I would like to read more.

John Duns Scotus, called Doctor Subtilis, was a Scholastic philosopher and theologian who pioneered the classical defence of the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin (the Immaculate Conception) and argued that the Incarnation was not dependent on the fact that man had sinned …

Encyclopedia Britannica

---

In Scotus, the Incarnation is not a contingency plan when the original creative process of God goes awry because of sin. Scotus rejects this notion as too central an emphasis on Man to the extent that the freedom of God to act in love is determined by an external necessity i.e. the redemption from sin. Scotus understands the Incarnation as always being in the mind of God even before the historical and existential physicality of creation itself and the fact of sin.

Incarnation in Franciscan Spirituality

 

[Matt16_18]

davidv:

“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

That is exactly my point.

I don’t deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, I deny the dogma of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Matt16_18]

More good stuff …

The Incarnation is the model for creation: there is a creation only because of the Incarnation. In this schema, the universe is for Christ and not Christ for the universe. Scotus finds it inconceivable that the ‘greatest good in the universe’ i.e. the Incarnation, can be determined by some lesser good i.e. Man’s redemption. This is because such a sin-centred view of the Incarnation suggests that the primary rôle of Christ is as an assuager of the universe’s guilt. In the Absolute Primacy, Christ is the beginning, middle and end of creation.

Incarnation in Franciscan Spirituality

 

[Ghosty]

Matt16_18: I’m hardly saying that every matter of Tradition must be backed up by Scripture, merely that on this issue I see no reason to believe your position one way or another. Scripture is not silent on the reasons for the Incarnation, however, so I follow both Tradition and Scripture. There may be other reasons for the Incarnation, I just don’t know/follow them.

As for the whole “persisting paradise”, I don’t know if I accept it. Again, it’s possible, but it doesn’t affect any of matters from Tradition or Scripture near as I can tell. For some it might be comforting, but it matters not at all to me.