tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3523454952282240000..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: An Analysis from OutsideFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56040183126163210372009-12-06T11:22:56.516-05:002009-12-06T11:22:56.516-05:00Hi Poetreader
-On Mary being the New Eve
For scri...Hi Poetreader<br /><br />-On Mary being the New Eve<br />For scripture, I was going on the grounding provided by Fr. Hart in an earlier post, but perhaps you don’t agree, I don’t know. <br /><br />On Point 1 re Divinity and Mary.<br />You are correct that polytheists don’t require Creator for their definition of divinity. But surely, as Christians we consider that definition to be faulty? Why should they be the standard-bearers? After all, what’s the point of worshiping something other than the Creator? Putting creature before Creator is blasphemous in my book. Any “folk-catholicism” that puts Mary on a divine pedestal is schismatic, but that must be distinguished from rightly honouring her as the saint of saints.<br /><br />On Point 2, Mary the Mother of God<br />When you say that “this does not give her authority over Him”, I just want to note that we are agreed that Mary had authority over herself, that she could reject God’s call if she wanted to, because she was free. <br /><br />On Point 3, The Importance of Mary’s Yes<br />“I fail to see, though, what relationship her decision has to the presence or absence of original sin.” That’s no problem, I included that because some might argue that any potential for a No from Mary would be because she was a fallen creature. That doesn’t apply here.<br /><br />On “I was able to accept Jesus into my own life, though a wretched sinner, and do so week after week in the eucharist…” This is interesting because the crux of my argument is that it didn’t work the other-way-around. In other words, the fact that we are “wretched sinners” is such an affront to God’s holiness, that we had to be redeemed BEFORE God would accept us in union. Our fall means we are lacking in God’s grace, surely only one “full of grace” and filled with divine favour would be privileged to carry the Almighty in symbiosis. <br /> <br />On Point 5, The Fruit of her Womb<br />“Week by week I house the Body and Blood, the humanity and divinity within my own being. That is His gift.” But that gift was earned for us as part of the New Covenant, we didn’t merit it, it was because Jesus took on the sins of the world and offered Himself as the most perfect Holy sacrifice to God the Father. Only His perfect sacrifice cleansed the sin that is such an affront to God’s holiness.<br /><br />“It has been said that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unclean temple, That is false, as that is the only kind of temple there is.” Is an unclean temple the “only kind of temple there is”? The answer must be no, because otherwise God’s grace is trapped. Adam and Eve were pure clean temples made in God’s image and likeness. Mary, as we agree, was subject to God’s sanctifying grace, this didn’t put a holy vale around an unclear temple but truly transformed it and made it acceptable to God that He Himself would dwell there and still remain in holiness.<br /><br />“To say that God cannot touch this sin is to say that salvation cannot occur.” <br /><br />Salvation in the Resurrection is totally at God’s discretion. This is what makes Christ’s Resurrection the most important event in human history. It is God’s victory over sin which opened the gates of paradise to us all. The OT saints too were tainted by sin and needed the Ressurection, only the pure in heart can see God. <br /><br />On the point about “touch”. There is an infinite divide between “touch” which is always between two separate bodies who do the physical touching and symbiosis which is about metaphysical union and no touch as such. Jesus touched but He was not in symbiosis with those He cured. While I argue that Mary was Conceived Immaculate, that does not mean I hold that she did not “touch” others who were tainted by sin. It means she and no one else was uniquely filled with God’s grace because of God’s plan for her, she was God’s choice. <br /><br /> Lord, save us and protect us until we reach the fullness of your Kingdom won for us unworthy servants by the perfect sacrifice of your Son, Christ Jesus.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57800003359397661792009-12-05T19:27:42.899-05:002009-12-05T19:27:42.899-05:00Jakian Thomist wrote, "Mary’s womb could not ...Jakian Thomist wrote, "Mary’s womb could not experience even the least connection with sin from its very existence on, as it housed for nine months infinite holiness."<br /><br />The implication here is that the physical touch of Christ worked not healing, as in the case of the woman who was haemorrhaging, but instead magic, by altering retroactively that which had existed before.<br /><br />"To say otherwise is to diminish the need for salvation." <br /><br />That is a complete non sequitur. It was precisely because we are in need of salvation that God came to earth to bring it to us, but that fact does not validate imprudent and presumptuous speculations about the means God chose for that task.<br /><br />"We must ask ourselves is sin not such an affront to the holiness of God that the Son of God could be in symbiosis with sinful nature before the Resurrection, the redeeming sacrifice for mankind?"<br /><br />Were that the case, Jesus would never have touched sinners in order to heal them, nor would he have sat down to eat and drink with them. So J.T.'s postulate is precisely that of the Pharisees who criticized Our Lord for doing just that.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84942835008858351702009-12-05T19:07:06.302-05:002009-12-05T19:07:06.302-05:00(continued)
5) The fruit of her womb
Mary’s excep...(continued)<br /><br /><i>5) The fruit of her womb<br />Mary’s exceptional statue in holiness is inseparable from the status of Mary’s son as being the Son of God. The fruit of the womb is blessed because it is holiness itself. Therefore, Mary’s womb could not experience even the least connection with sin from its very existence on, as it housed for nine months infinite holiness.</i><br /><br />How does that follow? Week by week I house the Body and Blood, the humanity and divinity within my own being. That is His gift. He comes, even to a sinner such as I. If this close and intimate cell-by-cell union were only possible to one never touched by sin, no sinner could be saved. It has been said that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unclean temple, That is false, as that is the only kind of temple there is.<br /><br /><i>To say otherwise is to diminish the need for salvation. We must ask ourselves is sin not such an affront to the holiness of God that the Son of God could be in symbiosis with sinful nature before the Resurrection, the redeeming sacrifice for mankind?</i><br /><br />Yes, sin is such an affront to God, which is just why he answers that evil in such a dramatic way, by a death on the Cross and by the entering in of sinful men into union with that sacrificial death. To say that God <b>cannot</b> touch this sin is to say that salvation cannot occur. To try to bind salvation by the linear progress of time is to limit God and to deny the salvation of OT saints, and of Mary herself who calls God her Savior. <br /><br /><i>6) The consequences<br />I hope that readers find that the Immaculate Conception is not to be viewed as an ‘optional’ extra, but a core foundation for faith, a belief to be championed. Catholics are ‘Hail-Mary’ Christians for a reason and it is infinitely tied to God’s choice for His redemptive plan for salvation.</i><br /><br />I am ready to accept that the Immaculate Conception could have been God's choice, but not that we can know that it was. I see no necessity. Your arguments here have a certain plausibility in demonstrating that it is at least difficult to prove such a notion false -- but they have not the compelling force to make this the kind of foundational doctrine that you would make it to be. If it be a core foundation for faith as you say, then you may brand me faithless, for, in the current state of my knowledge I do not accept such a doctrine, and, while refusing to condemn anyone that does, I deny with strength that anyone has the right to make such a doctrine obligatory. I trust in Jesus Christ and him crucified and not in any nonscriuptural doctrine about His mother.<br /><br /><i>Mary, Mother of God, pray for us</i><br /><br />May she indeed do so. I often adk her prayers and those of all the saints.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72287756749615528792009-12-05T19:06:06.487-05:002009-12-05T19:06:06.487-05:00(continued)
2) Can we call Mary the Mother of God...(continued)<br /><br /><i>2) Can we call Mary the Mother of God?<br />This wasn’t a major focus of our past discussion but I do think it is important to deciphering the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Now perhaps “Mother of God” makes some here uneasy and for sure it will outrage the Neo-Arians among us. The Logic Statements are clear: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God. This conclusion cannot be escaped unless we posit polytheism. It is true of course, that Mary, a humble handmaid, can only merit this title (i) if Jesus is inexplicably product of her flesh and (ii) if Jesus is, was, and always will be God.</i><br /><br />Of course Mary is Theotokos, God-bearer, loosely translated as Mother of God. That is the conciliar decision adopted against Nestorius and is the universal consensus of the church of the Councils. But this does not give her authority over Him, as a mother has over her son, even though it does give her a place of high honor.<br /><br /><i>3) The Importance of Mary’s Yes<br />If we believe that God has given us freewill then we should believe that our responses to God matter. Mary had the freewill to reject the Incarnation if she chose to and this need not be because she was tarnished by Original Sin. Eve did not require Original Sin to reject God’s word. But unlike Eve who said yes to the Devil, - Mary, the second Eve, said Yes to God and is rightly honoured. It is not possible to have Christ except as Son of Mary. The Incarnation is either rooted in flesh, which can only be Mary’s, or has nothing to do with God insofar as He wanted to be incarnate.</i><br /><br />Yes, her fiat mihi puts her in the midst of the fulfillment of God's plan. I fail to see, though, what relationship her decision has to the presence or absence of original sin. I see no connection whatever. I was able to accept Jesus into my own life, though a wretched sinner, and do so week after week in the eucharist, still a wretched sinner.<br /><br /><i>4) God’s choice<br />As was made clear by the message of the Angel, God wanted nothing less than full symbiosis with a mere handmaid. God’s choice in Mary places her above any other creature, including the Angels. Indeed the Angel showed a special, deferential respect, towards her, most fitting for a creature in receipt of God’s grace. However, this grace was Mary’s unique destiny, as long as God planned for man’s salvation. This was a grace that truly sanctifies on a profoundly ontological level, not a sugar coating around a sinful creature. And this was most pleasing to God because it was His sovereign gift, which doesn’t diminish Him, just as the gift of creation does not impoverish the Creator.</i><br /><br />(to be continued)poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87351091444143346012009-12-05T19:04:54.718-05:002009-12-05T19:04:54.718-05:00JT,
I find this post to be interesting, but quite ...JT,<br />I find this post to be interesting, but quite faulty in logic. I'm going to comment in some detail. Your post in italics.<br /><br /><i>I think we are agreed on the following:<br />-That Adam and Eve were created without sin<br />-That Mary is the new Eve</i><br /><br />While I can agree with this in a symbolic sense, I find no Scriptural support for any more than that, nor do the references found in early writers support more than a symbolic sense. This is a useful point for meditation, but NOT something on which one can build doctrine.<br /><br /><i>-That Jesus was not affected by original sin because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit<br />-That Mary was favoured by God and received the gift of His Grace<br /><br />Now to the more contentious issues<br /><br />1) On John’s point about the Immaculate Conception being linked to Mary’s divinity.<br />I think I have satisfactorily argued against this, because (i) God had already made creatures which have not been tarnished by Original Sin i.e. Adam and Eve and no one has suggested that they were divine and (ii) Being divine involves being the Creator of all, which was not suggested of Mary.</i><br /><br />The problem is not that it must imply divinity, but that is certainly can be demonstrated to fee the folk catholicism that does elevate her to a divine or quasi-divine status. Being divine does not necessarily involve being Creator. Most of the gods of polytheism condemned in the Old Testament were not creator divinities, but were worshiped. Even the brazen serpent that God had commanded Moses to make came to be worshiped as if divine and ultimately had to be destroyed. <br /><br />(to be continued)poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29379892048626152582009-12-05T16:32:47.208-05:002009-12-05T16:32:47.208-05:00Apologies for the delayed reply. I appreciate your...Apologies for the delayed reply. I appreciate your concerns on scriptural interpretation and I feel I have lead us on a tangent about Eve’s anthropology, albeit a very interesting one at that.<br /><br />Instead, I want to summarise the points made about the Immaculate Conception and where we can go from here.<br /><br />I think we are agreed on the following:<br />-That Adam and Eve were created without sin<br />-That Mary is the new Eve <br />-That Jesus was not affected by original sin because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit<br />-That Mary was favoured by God and received the gift of His Grace<br /><br />Now to the more contentious issues <br /><br />1) On John’s point about the Immaculate Conception being linked to Mary’s divinity.<br />I think I have satisfactorily argued against this, because (i) God had already made creatures which have not been tarnished by Original Sin i.e. Adam and Eve and no one has suggested that they were divine and (ii) Being divine involves being the Creator of all, which was not suggested of Mary.<br /><br />2) Can we call Mary the Mother of God?<br />This wasn’t a major focus of our past discussion but I do think it is important to deciphering the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Now perhaps “Mother of God” makes some here uneasy and for sure it will outrage the Neo-Arians among us. The Logic Statements are clear: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God. This conclusion cannot be escaped unless we posit polytheism. It is true of course, that Mary, a humble handmaid, can only merit this title (i) if Jesus is inexplicably product of her flesh and (ii) if Jesus is, was, and always will be God. <br /><br />3) The Importance of Mary’s Yes<br />If we believe that God has given us freewill then we should believe that our responses to God matter. Mary had the freewill to reject the Incarnation if she chose to and this need not be because she was tarnished by Original Sin. Eve did not require Original Sin to reject God’s word. But unlike Eve who said yes to the Devil, - Mary, the second Eve, said Yes to God and is rightly honoured. It is not possible to have Christ except as Son of Mary. The Incarnation is either rooted in flesh, which can only be Mary’s, or has nothing to do with God insofar as He wanted to be incarnate. <br /><br />4) God’s choice<br />As was made clear by the message of the Angel, God wanted nothing less than full symbiosis with a mere handmaid. God’s choice in Mary places her above any other creature, including the Angels. Indeed the Angel showed a special, deferential respect, towards her, most fitting for a creature in receipt of God’s grace. However, this grace was Mary’s unique destiny, as long as God planned for man’s salvation. This was a grace that truly sanctifies on a profoundly ontological level, not a sugar coating around a sinful creature. And this was most pleasing to God because it was His sovereign gift, which doesn’t diminish Him, just as the gift of creation does not impoverish the Creator. <br /><br />5) The fruit of her womb<br />Mary’s exceptional statue in holiness is inseparable from the status of Mary’s son as being the Son of God. The fruit of the womb is blessed because it is holiness itself. Therefore, Mary’s womb could not experience even the least connection with sin from its very existence on, as it housed for nine months infinite holiness. To say otherwise is to diminish the need for salvation. We must ask ourselves is sin not such an affront to the holiness of God that the Son of God could be in symbiosis with sinful nature before the Resurrection, the redeeming sacrifice for mankind?<br /><br />6) The consequences<br />I hope that readers find that the Immaculate Conception is not to be viewed as an ‘optional’ extra, but a core foundation for faith, a belief to be championed. Catholics are ‘Hail-Mary’ Christians for a reason and it is infinitely tied to God’s choice for His redemptive plan for salvation. <br /><br />Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1194883553715998172009-11-30T18:00:44.373-05:002009-11-30T18:00:44.373-05:00Exactly so. What is written is written, and interp...Exactly so. What is written is written, and interpretation requires noticing what is internal and what is external to any given text.<br /><br />I am less concerned about IC itself than about the doctrinal methodology of the post 1054 modern RCC. It is not the Vincentian Canon; it is not Universal Consensus and Antiquity, and seems even to claim superiority to them.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8872598164154842562009-11-30T16:35:32.787-05:002009-11-30T16:35:32.787-05:00Whether Eve was conceived or not has little or no ...Whether Eve was conceived or not has little or no relevance to this discussion as the text itself presents her as not having been. Even if we take the description as purely symbolic rather than literal, we are not entitled to make the symbolism of the passage depend upon things of which it quite pointedly does not speak. Eve's conception, thus is simply not under consideration here. If I should tell a long story about a barn, without specifying its color, it would be rather silly to make the meaning of my story depend upon its redness, a completely unspecified characteristic.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67090154948257153782009-11-30T16:16:35.822-05:002009-11-30T16:16:35.822-05:00Fr. Hart,
We can read the "7 days" as ...Fr. Hart, <br /><br />We can read the "7 days" as 7 actual days if we wish to and "not alter the text" but I'm a lot more interested in its truth content. As I said earlier I interpret scripture as how to go to heaven not how the heavens go.<br /><br />But more interestingly, I seem to have opened a pandora's box by raising Mary's assumption and linking it to her Immaculate Conception and potentially shot my argument in the foot.<br /><br />From the tiny bit of unreliable research I've done from wikipedia it says that Pope Pius XII's infallible declaration on the Assumption states that Mary was assumed "having completed the course of her earthly life". That leaves open whether Mary died or not, though tradition seems agreed that she did die. But then is being born free from sin an immediate 'free-pass' to eternal life? The answer is no since life is at the discretion of God. Of course, isn't the promise of eternal life the lie the Devil made to Eve? <br /><br />So since life is at the discretion of Our Lord, whether one is born with or without sin is irrelevant, making the Assumption not a condition of the Immaculate Conception.<br /><br />I'm still not happy with my explanation here and as I said before I am delighted to be having this discussion with you all, since it gives me the opportunity to think and indeed revise my arguments as I had to with John's first comment. <br /><br />Lord, through you sent your Son to be Saviour of the World, please let your generousity be the beacon of reconciliation in our fractured world.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79944107447191244912009-11-30T15:29:21.513-05:002009-11-30T15:29:21.513-05:00JT:
You are talking about a historical Eve in lig...JT:<br /><br />You are talking about a historical Eve in light of evolutionary science, and I was talking about the Eve of the text of Genesis. Simply put, we are not free to alter the text itself. <br /><br />Now, the tradition of Mary's Assumption is that after she died, and was buried in Ephesus, they could not find her body in the tomb, but only flowers where it had been. You might want to check the Eastern Orthodox tradition of the Dormition.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18248554322577426882009-11-30T15:04:31.833-05:002009-11-30T15:04:31.833-05:00There are a lot of responses here, so I’ll try to ...There are a lot of responses here, so I’ll try to deal with each of them briefly.<br /><br />First to John “This is the sort of thing that may make sense to weak, and fallible, human reasoning”. I totally reject this reference to ‘weak’ reasoning. Something is logical or it isn’t. If God reveals information to us, we are capable – if we wish – to comprehend it. We were made in the image and likeness of God to understand him. God does not make defective produce in his likeness. This scepticism about knowledge is incredibly damaging and has haunted philosophy since Descartes, and mark my words it’s promulgation will be the downfall of Christianity. As a Thomist, I don’t want anything to do with it.<br /><br />Now about what “God has clearly revealed to us”. Who decides? Whose infallible interpretation of scripture? Our logic is not fallible but our subjective interpretations certainly are, especially mine – that is why I look for guidance.<br /><br />Hi Poetreader, I am more sympathetic to your point. You are correct that Jesus is in union with us sinners – but that is because of his Resurrection. My original argument about biological ‘union’ was strictly related to Jesus’ human nature as New Adam. It is through Jesus’ Devine nature that He has destroyed sin and united us with him. My apologies for not making this clear earlier.<br /><br />Hello Nathan, “it follows that Mary's immaculacy could have been made manifest at any point before and including the Anunciation”. I see your point and I agree that it would be at God’s discretion. However, logically, it is difficult to understand how Mary could be New Eve unless like Eve she too was created without sin. Mary was created, so how can she be initially created with original sin and somehow then not touched by it in time for the Annunciation of Our Saviour? For the time from birth to time t, Mary still would have been in contact with original sin and hence not like the original Eve. But I do think you make a strong argument Nathan, thanks for sharing it with me.<br /><br />Fr. Hart, I feel that we are going somewhat around in circles about Adam and Eve. For our discussion on the Immaculate Conception the interpretation that Eve did individually exist on earth as our first human mother is what is most relevant. Going on what we know scientifically, our first human mother was conceived by a mother from a different species from which Eve evolved. Hence, my reading of how Genesis is relevant to this discussion is that Eve was conceived. So any argument distinguishing the sinless nature of Mary from that of Eve, on the ground of conception cannot hold, unless we want to attack scientific knowledge which I have no intention of doing.<br /><br />I think we both agree that scripturally Mary can be called New Eve. However, it was the essential nature of Eve to be sinless – that is what God wanted for her - and for Mary to be justified as being New Eve she too must logically share Eve’s essential sinless nature. <br /><br />Now, of course, Eve rejected her God given nature as part of Adam’s original sin and died, as we will too since we are all tainted by Original sin. Does it follow that if Mary was not tainted by Original Sin then she did not die? It would be interesting to follow the history of the doctrine of Mary’s assumption into heaven. The sites of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul have been wonderfully preserved by tradition, but perhaps you don’t agree, I don’t know. Was there talk of the tomb of Mary? I mean she was important being mother of Jesus, I would imagine it would have been preserved? This is just speculation, perhaps it can be a topic of discussion another time.<br /><br />I am enjoying our debate. I think several of my key starting points have made themselves known - First and foremost I am not an epistemological sceptic. Please don’t chastise me for wanting to know more, I trust my mind and I also trust God who made it. May our Lord, Christ Jesus, send us every blessing this advent season.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39028774775539560682009-11-30T10:59:59.463-05:002009-11-30T10:59:59.463-05:00Jakian Thomist said:
If you hold that an individua...Jakian Thomist said:<br /><i>If you hold that an individual can NEVER be freed from original sin - i.e. it being a contradiction to do so - then surely even God's grace is held as hostage?</i><br /><br />Another very telling observation. And if God's grace could not be so held, it follows that Mary's immaculacy could have been made manifest at any point before and including the Anunciation.<br /><br />Nathan<br />'eterv'Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11296779647932655590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76135437647051598842009-11-30T09:21:47.168-05:002009-11-30T09:21:47.168-05:00While it is true that, in the fullest sense, Jesus...While it is true that, in the fullest sense, Jesus is never in union with sin, it is nonetheless deeply true that He is in union with the Church, which is made up of sinners, like me. And what of St. Paul's troubling and counterintuitive word? --<br /><br /><i>...he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him</i> (2 Cor 5.21)<br /><br />Though He most certainly did not sin, a Jesus who has no contact with sin is not a Savior.<br /><br />In my Holiness/Pentecostal days the standard argument for the necessity of "entire sanctification" before being "filled with the Holy Ghost" was thet the Holy Ghost cannot dwell in an unclean temple. I came to see that, of course He can and must, as there is no other kind of temple.<br /><br />While the truth or falsity of the Immaculate Conception cannot be demonstrated from Scripture, arguments of this sort simply fall apart under their own weight.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10759299931643757232009-11-30T02:30:05.929-05:002009-11-30T02:30:05.929-05:00Jakian Thomist wrote, "it makes sense to argu...Jakian Thomist wrote, "it makes sense to argue that Jesus, being already pure as we agree, was never in union with sin, despite the premise that original sin passes from our fathers. This also explains why Jesus never took a wife, because Jesus cannot be in union with those touched by sin. Union between God and fallen man could only be achieved in the redeeming act of the Resurrection."<br /><br />This is the sort of thing that may make sense to weak, and fallible, human reasoning, but that, of course, is irrelevant to God. A decent humility should lead us to accept those things that have been clearly revealed to us (most of which are facts, not theories) and to be patient in waiting until God deigns to tell us more.<br /><br />It is, at bottom, simply arrogance to dig around in matters that God did not seem to think we need to know in order to be saved. We have more than enough to keep us occupied in coping with those things He clearly imparted to us.<br /><br />It is, however, an immemorial Roman tradition never to let anything remain well enough alone.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65383769880126026302009-11-29T22:09:54.513-05:002009-11-29T22:09:54.513-05:00...I’ll continue to have to do so because both are...<i>...I’ll continue to have to do so because both are supposed to apply to our world, the real world. If we do not then soon we will not have a “reasoned faith” as St. Paul required of us and will become a laughing stock as St. Augustine warned.</i><br /><br />That is not the same thing as altering the text itself. If your Adam and Ev had human parents (whether you believe them literal, allegorical or somehow both) then they are not the same couple about which we read in Genesis. That is not a valid method of interpretation.<br /><br /><i>But from my point of view, the minute that one suggests that the transmission of original sin is a biological process, then you must open the door to science and find the original Adam.</i><br /><br />The effect of Original Sin on biology is very real; it is called death. Nonetheless, the patriarchal inheritance of original sin through the first Adam, and the patriarchal inheritance of salvation through the Last Adam,are both inherited, and are both primarily spiritual.<br /><br /><i>Jesus’ human nature was the New Adam, pure and untouched by evil. For Mary to be the New Eve [new woman, i.e. the result, not the redeeming act] she too had to be pure and untouched by evil.</i><br /><br />But, this is merely human philosophical speculation, not revelation. God revealed that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that he was without sin; and that alone seemed to be quite enough for the ancient Church to make the connection between sinlessness and the virgin birth. If Thomas Aquinas saw no problem to be solved by IC, if the Church in Antiquity gives no evidence of seeing a problem in need of a solution, why did the See of Rome suddenly think they declare a mere theory to be dogma as late as 1850? Was the Church's Biblical/Chalecedonian Christology seriously flawed before 1850?<br /><br />This indicates a serious difference of mind between Rome and everybody else, including the Eastern Orthodox, about the fundamental nature of revelation, and about the discipline of exploring doctrine.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89780870364485446222009-11-29T09:24:24.275-05:002009-11-29T09:24:24.275-05:00Father Hart,
I understand your concern that my ar...Father Hart,<br /><br />I understand your concern that my argument can appear to be thinking around scripture instead of learning from it. And indeed I am “blending pure science with Biblical interpretation”, and I’m afraid I’ll continue to have to do so because both are supposed to apply to our world, the real world. If we do not then soon we will not have a “reasoned faith” as St. Paul required of us and will become a laughing stock as St. Augustine warned. <br /><br />Going from the premise original sin passes from our fathers – I agree that “For Him to be free from taint of Original Sin did not require a mother with an immaculate conception.” But from my point of view, the minute that one suggests that the transmission of original sin is a biological process, then you must open the door to science and find the original Adam. <br /><br />But then Jesus was in union with Mary in her womb and it makes sense to argue that Jesus, being already pure as we agree, was never in union with sin, despite the premise that original sin passes from our fathers. This also explains why Jesus never took a wife, because Jesus cannot be in union with those touched by sin. Union between God and fallen man could only be achieved in the redeeming act of the Resurrection. <br /><br />Jesus’ human nature was the New Adam, pure and untouched by evil. For Mary to be the New Eve [new woman, i.e. the result, not the redeeming act] she too had to be pure and untouched by evil. <br /><br />As you said earlier, this does not mean that Mary –earned- her status, it was a pure gift from God, only His grace could bestow this upon her, and indeed if it were not to be Mary who would it be? But then God knew the role that Mary would play as new Eve. Eve despite her lack of original sin said Yes to the Devil, Mary, a creature with equal purity said Yes to God and is fittingly honoured –not worshiped- as a concrete human example of what humanity could have been were it not for the fall. The saint of saints. <br /><br />Father, I know we may have our differences on this topic, but for me the Immaculate Conception is directly tied to our fall. I think I have learned a lot from our discussion and I appreciate your time for discussing this with me. Perhaps our differences were not as wide as when we first spoke? I consider you all to be my brothers and sisters, and I thank God for you all. I invite you to join with me in prayer for our eventual reconciliation, whenever and however that may be.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80913402546765747412009-11-28T22:28:43.189-05:002009-11-28T22:28:43.189-05:00Jakian Thomist:
You are blending pure science wit...Jakian Thomist:<br /><br />You are blending pure science with Biblical interpretation. If you cannot follow the literary nature of the Canon, then, whether you see those earliest chapters as allegory or fact, you will not be learning from the Canon, but thinking around it. The difference is very large.<br /><br /><i>Hence, your argument (if I have interpreted it correctly) that since original sin is passed by our fathers, and Mary had a biological father, hence Mary was conceived with original sin...</i><br /><br />I am disappointed that you missed the point, which I thought would be obvious. Jesus did not have a biological father. By the paradigm of Scripture (which is, indeed, patriarchal) the whole matter is about Him. For Him to be free from taint of Original Sin did not require a mother with an immaculate conception. Believe in IC if you like; but, it "solves" a problem that never existed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72495455757198059402009-11-28T16:50:20.229-05:002009-11-28T16:50:20.229-05:00Father, as a rule I do not engage in debate over s...Father, as a rule I do not engage in debate over scripture translation – it invariably ends up in a – who decides? – situation, totally subjective, no better than a house of sand.<br /><br />Next, when I interpret scripture subjectively, I use a simple rule – Scripture tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. So I take massive umbrage when you can state that “the text shows each of them created directly-Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib” and later state “But original sin passes to us from our fathers, ultimately from Adam”. These two statements are not reconcilable in the real world. This “Adam” who on your interpretation was “directly” created from the dust is not the same Adam who is responsible for our original sin. Science explains the how of our bodily origins perfectly well.<br /><br />Hence, your argument (if I have interpreted it correctly) that since original sin is passed by our fathers, and Mary had a biological father, hence Mary was conceived with original sin, cannot hold without resolving the problem of Adam – the actual Adam. Which brings us right back to the choices I gave in my last post. <br /><br />May we all find salvation though our Saviour, Christ Jesus.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57068962486754790242009-11-28T16:13:19.150-05:002009-11-28T16:13:19.150-05:00About Adam and Eve, the text shows each of them cr...About Adam and Eve, the text shows each of them created directly-Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib (their names were Man and Life, A-dom and Chavah). Your interpretation amounts to an editorial change of the text. Literature is what it is, whether Biblical, secular, pagan or whatever. The Adam and Eve <i>of Genesis</i> were not conceived, but directly and divinely created.<br /><br />We know that Jesus identified his mother as "the woman" whose seed He was, the Savior (from Gen. 3:15). So, she is the new Eve and has been given a vital place in our salvation history.<br /><br />But original sin passes to us from our fathers, ultimately from Adam, for man is the head, that is, as God designed humanity. This has implications for everything from the Incarnation to the all male priesthood. <br /><br />The question about IC, does correctly belong, as you have indicated, to the subject of grace. Gabriel said to her "Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women (Luke 1: 28)."<br /><br />The word "favored" is χαριτόω (<i>charitoō</i>), a form of χάρις (<i>charis</i> meaning "gift" or "grace"), which appears in v.30: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God." <br /><br />None of this teaches IC by revelation, but it is at least, perhaps, an acceptable theory when we remember that it is about grace, not some merit of Mary's own.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7235979777675579162009-11-28T15:39:56.106-05:002009-11-28T15:39:56.106-05:00Fr. Hart,
I think we have a misunderstanding her...Fr. Hart, <br /><br />I think we have a misunderstanding here, my intention certainly was not to "rewrite the story by giving them human parents." How can Adam and Eve be our first human parents if they also had human parents? That doesn't make sense. <br /><br />But I do believe that they individually did exist on earth and my subjective reading of the text (this is where we need guidance from you know who ;) ) leads me to believe that the scribe believed so also.<br /><br />I'm just curious if Adam and Eve were not conceived and sort of 'parachuted in' somehow, does the same apply to Cain and Abel? But that is to go off topic.<br /><br />I understand your point that "We do not speak of the Fall of Eve, but of Adam; and we do not speak of redemption through Mary, but through Jesus Christ." But I didn't write "New Adam" in the sense of redemptive act - which is something only our Saviour i.e. God can do - Mary needed to be saved also as I said earlier. <br /><br />I am speaking about the 'result' rather than the 'act' - the nature of mankind having the potential to return to the pure created state of Adam and Eve as exemplified in the human nature of Christ and the witness of Mary. <br /><br />When you say that Adam and Eve "represent Man in a state of innocence", I say they ARE man in a state of innocence - real tangible examples. This is of course a massive divide in interpretation and perhaps our whole discussion on the Immaculate Conception can't be resolved until we further investigate this difference.<br /><br />I am unsure whether you hold that there can never be an individual free from original sin, or is it that you hold that Adam's circumstance is different? <br /><br />If you hold that an individual can NEVER be freed from original sin - i.e. it being a contradiction to do so - then surely even God's grace is held as hostage? <br /><br />If you hold that Adam was 'different' and (i) not human in our everyday sense - then what's he to do with us or (ii)soul in a different environment with 'intimate experience' or 'knowledge'. But man is not his soul, it is not body or mind that knows but man through both. <br /> <br />Father, just in case you get the wrong impression, i'm not being smart here, but I cannot see how these problems can be resolved by your interpretation of the fall. I am all ears for a better explanation. <br /><br />But perhaps we can discuss this another time, there are still many points on my second reply on the topic of this thread to be discussed. May God bless you all.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2904059288507659302009-11-28T13:51:19.832-05:002009-11-28T13:51:19.832-05:00On a technical note, I believe that Adam and Eve w...<i>On a technical note, I believe that Adam and Eve were conceived - I am not a creationist.</i><br /><br />Objection: The interpretation of any literature has to begin with accepting the text on its own terms. Whether you believe that the story of Adam and Eve contains allegory (a sort of Pre-Incarnate-to coin an inadequate phrase- Parable of our Lord), or is pure history, you have no license to rewrite the story by giving them human parents. <br /><br />This gets to the point of why they cannot be examples of individuals born with no original sin (whether understood with a Western or Eastern mind). They represent Man in a state of innocence, and as the creation of God. The story of the Fall points to the introduction of sin by some act of disobedience creating the knowledge (דַּעַת) of good and evil; i.e. intimate experience (Gen. 3:7; 4:1 יָדַע a form of the same word, דַּעַת) that included evil as well as good. <br /><br />You can't rewrite the story; they were not conceived. And, that really has nothing to do with "24/7 Creationism."<br /><br /><i>If Jesus Christ is the new Adam [i.e. new man], who is to be new Eve [i.e. new woman]? Surely only one also conceived without sin?</i><br /><br />That does not follow. We must understand the One and the many (Isaiah 53:12, Romans 5:12-21) in terms of headship. We do not speak of the Fall of Eve, but of Adam; and we do not speak of redemption through Mary, but through Jesus Christ.<br /><br />So, the <i>necessity</i> of IC is not apparent.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84327394191833294312009-11-28T13:35:00.777-05:002009-11-28T13:35:00.777-05:00Excellent reply John, I think I will have to tidy ...Excellent reply John, I think I will have to tidy my argument up a bit.<br /><br />I would like to comment on your statement that “one cannot hold the Immaculate Conception [of Mary] without very possibly coming to be unable to deny Mary's divinity.” <br /><br />What happens when we insert the names Adam and Eve instead of the Mary into your statement, since they were also created without original sin? Are we unable to deny their potential divinity? On a technical note, I believe that Adam and Eve were conceived - I am not a creationist.<br /><br />Also divinity is inexplicably linked with being the creator of all, I don’t see how Mary being conceived sinless makes her a potential candidate to become creator. <br /><br />If Jesus Christ is the new Adam [i.e. new man], who is to be new Eve [i.e. new woman]? Surely only one also conceived without sin? Note: This last paragraph does not mean that I equate Mary with Jesus as God - it has always been argued that Mary also needed Jesus as saviour. <br /><br />I pray you all every blessing.Jakian Thomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173059707881271764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91445434117288824872009-11-28T10:27:27.816-05:002009-11-28T10:27:27.816-05:00Mark VA
Understood. My major point remains, howev...Mark VA<br />Understood. My major point remains, however, that it is indeed Rome that slammed the door on further inquiry into a long controverted matter, and that that, in itself, may be taken as a piece of evidence that Papal claims may be somewhat overblown. Though I find myself unable to accept the Immaculate Conception as true, it is not the doctrine itself that disturbs me. Many have accepted it and it is not up to me to sit in judgment over them. What does disturb me is that one bishop can find himself so authoritative as to make such a proclamation when none is needed, and when such a proclamation will, in its very nature, further divide Christians.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61668608118200080032009-11-28T07:08:21.837-05:002009-11-28T07:08:21.837-05:00From the Roman perspective:
Poetreader:
My comme...From the Roman perspective:<br /><br />Poetreader:<br /><br />My comment regarding the Scriptures was not meant to include those who blog here - such fundamentalist views are not present here. I didn't make that clear, so please accept my sincere mea culpa. I was trying to say that the foundations for some Church doctrines draw on a variety of sources, many of them from different times, all of which must be considered and logically synthesized. Those of us who want to understand these types of doctrines, must share in such labors, and this takes time. This is an invitation, as Pope John Paul II once remarked, to think with the (Roman Catholic) Church.<br /><br />Canon Lloyd:<br /><br />It seems to me that questions related to Mary and her role in the Church are very much alive today in ecumenical settings. This certainly includes the Anglicans, as the link below shows:<br /><br />http://www.esbvm.org.uk/ <br /><br />Let me close with a bit of ethereal humor. Professor Macquarrie’s biography in Wikipedia contains this statement regarding his ordination in the Anglican Church:<br /><br />“He was ordained priest by the Bishop of New York on June 16, 1965 and the next day (the Feast of Corpus Christi) he celebrated his first Eucharist at the Church of St Mary the Virgin in New York City”.Mark VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75422348972929013332009-11-28T04:20:29.979-05:002009-11-28T04:20:29.979-05:00Jakian Thomist wrote that "one cannot hold th...Jakian Thomist wrote that "one cannot hold the Immaculate Conception and logically deny Christ’s divinity."<br /><br />That, however, is a non sequitur. What is logical is that one cannot hold the Immaculate Conception without very possibly coming to be unable to deny Mary's divinity.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.com