De Lubac said we have a natural desire for grace. John Paul promoted a lot of people to cardinal that maybe shouldn’t have been. If we have a natural desire for grace than it would be owed to us. De lubac never explained this. He just called it a paradox.Not sure why you mentioned De Lubac.
Also De Lubac was vindicated when St. Pope John Paul II made him cardinal in 1983.
On this, no, you are clearly out of line with every orthodox Church Father since at least the second century (and only then because first century writings are sparse), and out of line with Saint Paul himself. It has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that Jesus took his flesh from Mary, that Jesus was not just “placed” there to pass through her, but that he took his flesh from hers. This was especially emphasized because the reproductive understanding of the time was that children took their flesh only from the father’s seed and that the woman was just a vessel (which is similar to what you propose). The Church Fathers were consistent in hammering that with Jesus and Mary it was different, that he had a true human nature due to the flesh he received from Mary. Before the development of any other Marian dogma or doctrine, this was of primary concern to all the Fathers. When any of them wrote about Mary in the early centuries, it was almost always in reference to Jesus being born of/from and not just through her, that he took his flesh from hers. You see this in commentary on the genealogies, of Saint Paul’s words, etc… Jesus’ flesh was formed from Mary’s flesh. Jesus is part of the family of men he came to redeem.Is the idea of Jesus carrying DNA from Mary a main stream Catholic concept or speculation from this particular group? Also why do they choose to believe Mary donated her DNA since the Holy spirit who we may presume, being spirit, doesn’t have DNA to donate? It is the male contribution which dictates the sex of the child. If this is significant in Christ’s purpose and this was a supernatural contribution from the holy spirit what need is there of Mary’s DNA? The whole context of the birth is that it was a supernatural event in total. Mary having no relations sexually in any way. This being the case, it is more reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirits contribution extends to all 46 pairs of chromosomes. Look to your own method of typology, comparing Jesus to the first Adam. Adams DNA came directly ex nihilo from God with no female contribution. Contrast this fact with Eves creation using Adam. Does this make sense to you? God bless
I think they believe they got the matter from the mother. The semen provided the impetus to the mother’s matter; that is, once the semen touch the egg the prime matter of the egg changed into prime matter for the soul. The semen just did the action of causing the soul to infuseOn this, no, you are clearly out of line with every orthodox Church Father since at least the second century (and only then because first century writings are sparse), and out of line with Saint Paul himself. It has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that Jesus took his flesh from Mary, that Jesus was not just “placed” there to pass through her, but that he took his flesh from hers. This was especially emphasized because the reproductive understanding of the time was that children took their flesh only from the father’s seed and that the woman was just a vessel (which is similar to what you propose). The Church Fathers were consistent in hammering that with Jesus and Mary it was different, that he had a true human nature due to the flesh he received from Mary. Before the development of any other Marian dogma or doctrine, this was of primary concern to all the Fathers. When any of them wrote about Mary in the early centuries, it was almost always in reference to Jesus being born of/from and not just through her, that he took his flesh from hers. You see this in commentary on the genealogies, of Saint Paul’s words, etc… Jesus’ flesh was formed from Mary’s flesh. Jesus is part of the family of men he came to redeem.
In short, this is a core Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on the Incarnation, and is among the most ancient parts of the faith (in terms of available, explicit, developed testimony).
I thought that before a certain point they didn’t even know women had eggs, and thought the womb just served as “soil” for the male “seed” to find purchase and grow.I think they believe they got the matter from the mother. The semen provided the impetus to the mother’s matter; that is, once the semen touch the egg the prime matter of the egg changed into prime matter for the soul. The semen just did the action of causing the soul to infuse
In original sin the material follows from formal: primary (formal) and consequent (material).They thought that the women had the vegetable matter for transformation. As for original sin, does it exist in our souls or our bodies? When Aquinas says that the formal element is in Adam’s sin, doesn’t he really mean the efficient cause? The formal cause would be the soul of the descendent (the carrier)
I gotta wonder: do Presbyterians sit around discussing things like “formal cause” and “consequent cause”?I don’t like this confusion of language with scholastics. Adam’s sin should be called the efficient cause. The formal cause is the soul-form which is effected by the stain; or more properly, it is a privation so it has no formal cause
Four causes reveal matter, form, source, and end.I don’t like this confusion of language with scholastics. Adam’s sin should be called the efficient cause. The formal cause is the soul-form which is effected by the stain; or more properly, it is a privation so it has no formal cause
I cannot confirm your assertion that St. Paul’s position on Christ’s nature has anything to do with Mary. Could you please quote him in reference to this. Same with the early Church fathers. I would be most appreciative if you could give me some quotes of theirs regarding this relationship. Christ’s “true” human nature, scripturally speaking, has only been compared to God the father and Adam. Mary is nowhere to be mentioned. Adam took his “true” human nature as a grace from God. It is speculative equivocation to say Christ needed Mary’s flesh to become “truly” human when the nature of human beings was brought about in 1 of 2 different ways… 1) Adam, which Christ is compared with, neither took his flesh from a human mother nor a human father and 2) By definition a human being gets its nature from a human Mother AND a Father. To say Christ needed Maries flesh is a tautological fallacy. This fallacy is not needed, there is already 2 different methods whereby God has propagated Human Nature. Through Adam and through a human father and human mother together. Nothing about only a single human female. The introduction of Mary’s importance in contributing her human “flesh” or DNA into the mix is an unnecessary speculative theological creation used to support a particular view of Mary. The birthing process is the explicit part of his truly human nature. Not the conception. The conception wasn’t human. It was supernatural. Only from the point of the birth does his humanity become extant, for all to see. That was the point…that all would see his humanity and could relate to it.On this, no, you are clearly out of line with every orthodox Church Father since at least the second century (and only then because first century writings are sparse), and out of line with Saint Paul himself. It has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that Jesus took his flesh from Mary, that Jesus was not just “placed” there to pass through her, but that he took his flesh from hers. This was especially emphasized because the reproductive understanding of the time was that children took their flesh only from the father’s seed and that the woman was just a vessel (which is similar to what you propose). The Church Fathers were consistent in hammering that with Jesus and Mary it was different, that he had a true human nature due to the flesh he received from Mary. Before the development of any other Marian dogma or doctrine, this was of primary concern to all the Fathers. When any of them wrote about Mary in the early centuries, it was almost always in reference to Jesus being born of/from and not just through her, that he took his flesh from hers. You see this in commentary on the genealogies, of Saint Paul’s words, etc… Jesus’ flesh was formed from Mary’s flesh. Jesus is part of the family of men he came to redeem.
In short, this is a core Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on the Incarnation, and is among the most ancient parts of the faith (in terms of available, explicit, developed testimony).
Don’t know why you mention spinning words. The definitions are there as used from Aristotle and Aquinas.Yep. The soul is the form of the body, so the formal element is a deprivation in the soul and the efficient cause is Adam’s sin. Just what I said. There is no material cause because original sin isn’t about matter. Don’t spin words please
Christ’s humanity was not simply “relate-able.” It was necessary for His sacrifice on the cross for him to be fully human and therefore fully able to reconcile humans with G_D. Being fully human, His fertilized ovum needed to be implanted onto Mary’s uterine wall, which had grown a thicker layer of the endometrium. Once implanted, the endometrium nourished the ovum and started to develop into the placenta. This, also, is an explicit part of “(H)is truly human nature”, not simply His birth. Therefore, her flesh was essential in the growth and development of His Human nature. And since the corruptible cannot create the incorruptible (i.e., imperfect flesh corrupted by Original Sin cannot create a person both Human and Divine), Mary’s flesh, which nourished and provided the materials for the Body of Jesus to grow and develop, must needs be without the corruption of Original Sin.It is speculative equivocation to say Christ needed Mary’s flesh to become “truly” human when the nature of human beings was brought about in 1 of 2 different ways… 1) Adam, which Christ is compared with, neither took his flesh from a human mother nor a human father and 2) By definition a human being gets its nature from a human Mother AND a Father. To say Christ needed Maries flesh is a tautological fallacy. This fallacy is not needed, there is already 2 different methods whereby God has propagated Human Nature. Through Adam and through a human father and human mother together. Nothing about only a single human female. The introduction of Mary’s importance in contributing her human “flesh” or DNA into the mix is an unnecessary speculative theological creation used to support a particular view of Mary. The birthing process is the explicit part of his truly human nature. Not the conception. The conception wasn’t human. It was supernatural. Only from the point of the birth does his humanity become extant, for all to see. That was the point…that all would see his humanity and could relate to it.
Christ’s being “relate-able” IS the primary catalyst for our salvation through his suffering on the cross. It was not merely necessary for him to become truly human, Christ had to endure our condition as human beings. He had to take on the consequences of sin in order that our sin might be conquered and vindicated before the Father. He had to suffer as we suffer, feel as we feel, thirst as we thirst, hunger as we hunger. He HAD to be relatable to us most personally. His “relate-ability” IS our salvation.Christ’s humanity was not simply “relate-able.” It was necessary for His sacrifice on the cross for him to be fully human and therefore fully able to reconcile humans with G_D.
I can only ponder those things about God which God has chosen to reveal. Anything beyond this I cannot comment on. To come to a logical conclusion based on revelations from God is one thing but to speculate on unverifiable conjecture is a thing insurmountably distant from being meaningful. The only meaning one can glean from such speculation is whether or not it is internally consistent and coherent within itself. That being said you’ve described a verifiable text book process of normal human conception, consistent, coherent, and verifiable. So far I’m following you. You make a logical fallacy, however, by claiming this is explicit in regards to Christ acquiring “true human nature”. This description of Christ’s conception within Mary can at best be regarded as implicit and only if some revelatory or explicit information can be used to make this conclusion. No such information exists that I am aware of. If you have such evidence please share it. The conception is implicit due to its very nature. There can be no witnesses but God to its process and God to my knowledge has given no revelatory information which may be applied to Christ’s conception implicitly. The jump from describing a normal human birth to using this description as proof that Mary’s flesh was essential in Christ’s acquiring his human nature is unwarranted. Christ’s birth however is explicit in its nature. There were witnesses and direct revelatory scripture describing the manner of birth.Being fully human, His fertilized ovum needed to be implanted onto Mary’s uterine wall, which had grown a thicker layer of the endometrium. Once implanted, the endometrium nourished the ovum and started to develop into the placenta. This, also, is an explicit part of “(H)is truly human nature”, not simply His birth. Therefore, her flesh was essential in the growth and development of His Human nature.
Here again you make unwarranted assumptions. 1) You haven’t proven the relationship between Mary’s flesh and Christ’s acquiring true humanity as regards above and 2) You haven’t clarified the nature of the relationship between Jesus and corruptibility and his need for being insulated in some manner from corruption. Your own words belie this assumption. You say “the corruptible cannot create the incorruptible”….what is incorruptible? For what is incorruptible by definition cannot be made corrupted. You seem seek to corner God with your words. What makes you think God cannot remain pure in spite of interacting with the impure? I would imagine God will not be corralled into being told what he can and cannot let happen. Christ came to save the impure of the world. To do this he had to relate to them not insulate himself from them. He had to take on the sins of the world remember in order that he redeem the world that brought forth sin. What difference is there, In the womb or outside of it, he came to interact with corruption so that he might redeem that corruption in for the glory of the Father.And since the corruptible cannot create the incorruptible (i.e., imperfect flesh corrupted by Original Sin cannot create a person both Human and Divine), Mary’s flesh, which nourished and provided the materials for the Body of Jesus to grow and develop, must needs be without the corruption of Original Sin.
Again, I think your misunderstanding Christ’s “incorruptible” nature and the reason for his becoming man. Its oil and water, no matter how you mix them up they separate and remain each to themselves. The oil cannot be corrupted by the water no matter how hard you try.So what we are running into is a problem of reductio ad absurdum: reducing to the absurd. One can state that God preserved the materials that Mary provided in nourishing Jesus from the corruption of Original Sin, but then we have the issue of when that preservation occurred: at the chemical level? The molecular level? The sub-atomic level?
And as for His conception, if the Holy Spirit created both the X and Y chromosomes ex nihilo JUST to avoid the messy questions about Mary’s role (if Mary has no genetic connection to Jesus, is Mary TRULY the Mother of Jesus and therefore the Mother of God?), one then skates the line (as mentioned in previous posts) of promoting the Arianist heresy. It is far, FAR simpler to adopt the view that
*]Mary was preserved from the corruption of original sin;
*]Mary provided the X chromosomes while the Holy Spirit (her espoused husband) provided the Y chromosomes through means which we don’t understand
I’ve addressed the conceptions implicitness above. The fact that semen wasn’t used is most relevant. Scriptural comparisons of Christ with Adam are most relevant and explicit. Why do you ignore the fact that Adam was conceived supernaturally by God as true man without human parents and Christ is directly compared to him? There is scriptural precedence for comparing the creation of Adam without the need for a mothers contribution and his clearly being “truly man” and Christ’s becoming “truly man” without the need for a contribution from Mary. Your insistence on necessitating Mary’s contribution in order that Christ could become “truly man” ignores these facts.The conception IS an explicit part of His human nature, as it involved the combination of X and Y chromosomes in producing a fertilized ovum. The fact that it did not come about through the use of semen is irrelevant.
You have no foundation with which to conclude this. Would you consider Adam divine? Was Adam created with a truly human nature?In short, I believe that the view you are promoting – that both the X and the Y chromosomes were provided by the Holy Spirit, thus making a divinely created ovum – is a modern Arianism, teaching that Jesus was a created fully divine creature, created by the will of G_D without any participation of any humans in the creative act.
If so they are being ambiguous tooDon’t know why you mention spinning words. The definitions are there as used from Aristotle and Aquinas.
I am aware of the theory of Christ’s con-substantiation with the father. This too is a whole other argument I’d love to discuss with you but this thread is concerned with Mary so we’ll stick with her. The comparison between Christ and Adam is scriptural and directly concerns Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Your argument for Mary’s essential genetic influence and fleshly contribution concerns Christ’s humanity not his so called “con-substantial” equality with God. Defining Christ’s differences from Adam is no counter argument to my propositions. The sacrifice on the cross was to elevate Mans position with God, not to lower God down to mans position. I didn’t compare Christ with Adam. Scripture did. Thus you must take this comparison into consideration when deciding how Christ gained his true humanity as a surer path to truth than creating a theory out of whole cloth to fit your particular view of Mary. I cannot discuss meaningfully your theory with you if you do not address directly my arguments concerning it.I have to get to bed, so this will be short. Adam and Jesus are different in one very important way: Yes, Adam was created out of nothing, as a full human. However, never did Adam claim to be made “of the same substance” (con-substantial) as God. Jesus said “I and the Father are one” – IOW, Jesus was con-substantial with the father.
You miss my point. Whether or not his arguments would have made Christ a demigod was itself a part of the argument. The problem was that terms and philosophical speculation about Christ’s nature was brought into play without being able to fully understand the implications. Theories of personhood and equality were argued that are still misunderstood and argued over by theologians of all faiths even today. Through arrogant pride they tried to insist on an understanding of an incomprehensible concept which men themselves not God introduced. The results were that enforcement by those who had enough power was the only way to “settle” the situation. Even many who voted against Arianism were not themselves convinced of the other position according to some of the testimonies I’ve read. Simply because you have the power to enforce something does not make it true and yes I am aware of the arguments of the necessity of enforcement in some cases in order to prevent the fragmentation of the early church etc. I guess we all know how enforcement of an idea eventually turns out. Schism or worse. I cannot understand why we insist on using ambiguous and esoterically defined concepts to direct our actions. This is exactly why these arguments keep arising. They were never settled. Its simply the case that those in power enforce their own conception of truth when that truth was not given explicitly by God to everyone.The second thing to consider is that the early Christians had to constantly argue against the idea that Jesus was a demigod. Demigods (half gods, such as Hercules) would have fit very well into the understandings of the pagans and so would have made things much easier for them. Instead, led by the Holy Spirit, they rejected that idea and worked against it to the point of having a Church Council called to decide the question once and for all.
Do zavtra…