 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 07:24 am |
|
March 25
The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Commonly called Lady Day
from Butler's Lives of the Saints for March 25, page 674:
. . . the mystery of love and mercy promised to mankind thousands of years earlier, foretold by so many prophets, desired by so many saints, is accomplished upon earth. In that instant the Word of God becomes for ever united to manhood: the soul of Jesus Christ, produced from nothing, begins to enjoy God and to know all things, past, present and to come: at that moment God begins to have a worshipper who is infinite, and the world a mediator who is omnipotent: and to the working of this great mystery Mary alone is chosen to co-operate by her free assent.
Click here to order hardcover four-volume Butler's Lives of the Saints.
Celebrating the great mystery,
Becky
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
kimdyuma Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 774 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
Puleeze say that is isn't a day of obligation that I will miss- I have yet to get all those dates squared away 
____________________ Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
Annie Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
The Solemnity of the Annunciation is Monday the 31st so it would not fall in Easter week.
____________________ Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Kayla Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 364 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 02:55 pm |
|
Two quick things:
It's actually the Annunciation of the Lord. (The angel announces of our Lord to the Blessed Virgin).
Second, as someone already mentioned, it's moved to this coming Monday.
I may or may not be making my consecration to Mary on that day. Eek!
____________________ I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 03:46 pm |
|
Kim, sorry about setting off alarm bells. I forgot it had been moved when a dear friend called a couple of days ago, urging me to read the March 25 Annunciation material before our next conversation. I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to share it.
Click here for US Conference of Catholic Bishops website and info on Holy Days of Obligation.
The dates below are for Latin Rite Catholics and are in addition to Sundays.
January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God;
Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter, the solemnity of the Ascension;
August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary;
November 1, the solemnity of All Saints;
December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception;
December 25, the solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Whenever January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, or August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption, or November 1, the solemnity of All Saints, falls on a Saturday or on a Monday, the precept to attend Mass is abrogated.
That list helps, Kim, but there are still some local differences. So I have to depend on going every day or on announcements made about upcoming days of obligation.
Kayla, the choice of wording was not mine. I typed what was in the book. I would appreciate an update on your response to the consecration opportunity.
Alas, none of you commented on the material in red, which was of great interest to me. 
BeckyLast edited on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 04:15 pm by Intercessor
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Annie Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
Intercessor wrote: [size=Alas, none of you commented on the material in red, which was of great interest to me.  ]
I can't comment on it because I can't get my brain wrapped around it.

What do you think of it? 
____________________ Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 04:34 pm |
|
from Butler's Lives of the Saints for March 25, page 674:
. . . the mystery of love and mercy promised to mankind thousands of years earlier, foretold by so many prophets, desired by so many saints, is accomplished upon earth. In that instant the Word of God becomes for ever united to manhood: the soul of Jesus Christ, produced from nothing, begins to enjoy God and to know all things, past, present and to come: at that moment God begins to have a worshipper who is infinite, and the world a mediator who is omnipotent: and to the working of this great mystery Mary alone is chosen to co-operate by her free assent.
Regarding the material in red ---
Why, Miss Annie, I understand it purrfectlee, every tiny nuance.
See my nose growing longer and longer. 
I asked my friend about it and was told that my trouble is that I ask the most difficult and challenging questions of the ages but then want to be fed the answer in a silver teaspoon.
Ouch, ouch, double-ouch!!! 
I wanted to know where is the soul now that was created out of nothing for Jesus Christ.
Also, I need to get clear on where Jesus/Christ was (in two places at once??) during those thirty-three years. I'm getting dizzy trying to absorb that, with the creation of Jesus Christ, God gained an admirer He did not have previously. In over my head.
Well, I was counting on somebody at CHNI to run get the silver teaspoon.
Put some sugar on that silver teaspoon to help the hard stuff go down.
BeckyLast edited on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 04:41 pm by Intercessor
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
NorthStar Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 04:52 pm |
|
A blessed Feast of the Annunciation to all!
|
|
|
CajunRick Network Helper

| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
Intercessor wrote: [size=I wanted to know where is the soul now that was created out of nothing for Jesus Christ.]
When the priest mixes the water and wine at mass, it symbolizes the manner in which the human soul of Jesus blended with the Divinity of Christ. They are inseparable. When we speak of the "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ we are saying that the human and divine natures are perfectly blended as the water and wine blend in the chalice, and they cannot be separated any more than the water can be withdrawn from the wine.
NOTE: This is a simple, plain language explanation, not a theological dissertation!
So the answer is that the human soul of Jesus is wherever his divinity is.
____________________ Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
Cajunrick wrote:
NOTE: This is a simple, plain language explanation, not a theological dissertation!
So the answer is that the human soul of Jesus is wherever his divinity is.
Maybe part of my difficulty is that I've never really nailed down the Catholic differentiation between soul and spirit. I think as a Baptist I regarded them as the same thing. It's hard to get that out of my thinking.
Last edited on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 06:21 pm by Intercessor
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Also, I need to get clear on where Jesus/Christ was (in two places at once??) during those thirty-three years.
According to the Church, in His human nature, Jesus was not omnipresent, but in His divine nature (that was always present alongside His human nature) He continued to be omnipresent. This is an aspect of the Hypostatic Union. In the Incarnation, Jesus took on human nature, but He retained His divine nature (which was necessarily the case, since God in His essence cannot change, and Jesus is God).
It gets extremely heavy, but here is how Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes this aspect of Christology, the communicatio idiomatum:
The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh . . . It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, and rose again . . .
(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 144)
Christ's Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)
As Christ's Divine Person subsists in two natures, and may be referred to either of those two natures, so human things can be asserted of the son of God and Divine things of the Son of Man.
[ . . .]
The nature of the Hypostatic Union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and Human nature can be attributed to the person of Christ, on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature [Dave: Lutherans fall into this error]. Since concrete terms (God, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ the Almighty) designate the Hypostasis and abstract terms (Godhead, humanity, omnipotence) the nature, the following rule may be laid down: communicatio idioamatum fit in concreto, non in abstracto. The communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones. So, for example: The Son of Man died on the Cross; Jesus created the world. The rule is not valid if . . . the concrete term is limited to one nature. Thus it is false to say "Christ has suffered as God." "Christ created the world as a human being." It must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature, body and soul are referred to the nature, whose parts they are. Thus it is false to say: "Christ's soul is omniscient," "Christ's body is ubiquitous."
Further, predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones, as nothing may be denied to Christ which belongs to Him according to either nature. One, therefore, may not say: "The Son of God has not suffered," "Jesus is not almighty."
(Ott, pp. 160-161; italics added)
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 07:16 pm |
|
It's about time I got some of these things straightened out in my thinking. My views of the incarnation, Christ's ministry, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension have all been colored by an understanding formed in early childhood (and never before challenged) that God the Son was not in heaven between the incarnation and the ascension.
I understand you to be saying He was.
Looks as if I incorrectly "tolerated" a view of a third of the Trinity's being ripped away for thirty-three years. It seems very foolish now since I know the Trinity cannot be divided. Yet the limitations of language (and of young minds in formation) certainly lead Protestants to that view. (I shouldn't speak for all Protestants. Probably the ministers trained in theology had that clear decades ago.)
I think maybe I'm coming to a more Catholic understanding of who Jesus was. I've always seen Jesus Christ as the being created when, by the will of God the Father and by the power of God the Holy Spirit, God the Son was wrapped in human flesh. But if God the Son remains in heaven with the other two members of the Trinity during Jesus' lifetime, Jesus perhaps has an even closer experience to ours since we also are in the position of being alive and having Christ formed in us while Christ is also still in heaven with the other members of the Trinity. Am I making any sense?
One thing about this that makes me uneasy is the suggestion that Jesus was not fully divine from the beginning. For example, I do not believe that he sinned or behaved inappropriately as a child or as a youth.
I think I followed everything in your last post.
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
Hi Becky,
I wanted to know where is the soul now that was created out of nothing for Jesus Christ.
In heaven at the right hand of God. Jesus continues to be one Divine Person (God the Son) with a human nature and a divine nature. He rose from the dead and possessed (unlike the Father or Holy Spirit) a glorified human body, that continues to exist forever. Along with His human nature and body is also human intellect and a human soul. The soul is a human thing: the immaterial and immortal part of a human being: the portion that continues when the body dies, and where our identity really lies. So when Christ took on human nature He also acquired a soul. God the Father doesn't have a soul, nor does God the Holy Spirit.
For more on this, see: Catholic Encyclopedia: "Knowledge of Christ"
Maybe part of my difficulty is that I've never really nailed down the Catholic differentiation between soul and spirit.
From Catholic Encyclopedia: "Spirit":
(Latin spiritus, spirare, "to breathe"; Gk. pneuma; Fr. esprit; Ger. Geist). As these names show, the principle of life was often represented under the figure of a breath of air. The breath is the most obvious symptom of life, its cessation the invariable mark of death; invisible and impalpable, it stands for the unseen mysterious force behind the vital processes. Accordingly we find the word "spirit" used in several different but allied senses: (1) as signifying aliving, intelligent, incorporeal being, such as the soul; (2) as the fiery essence or breath (the Stoic pneuma) which was supposed to be the universal vital force; (3) as signifying some refined form of bodily substance, a fluid believed to act as a medium between mind and the grosser matter of the body.
. . . In Theology, the uses of the word are various. In the New Testament, it signifies sometimes the soul of man (generally its highest part, e.g., "the spirit is willing"), sometimes the supernatural action of God in man, sometimes the Holy Ghost ("the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive"). The use of this term to signify the supernatural life of grace is the explanation of St. Paul's language about the spiritual and the carnal man and his enumeration of the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, . . .
(cf., Catholic Encyclopedia: "Soul")
I'm getting dizzy trying to absorb that, with the creation of Jesus Christ,
We mustn't ever say "creation of Jesus Christ." That is the Arian heresy (now held by Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians) that reduces Jesus to a mere creature (and I know you didn't mean to imply that' it's just the terminology). What was created was Jesus' human body and soul and intellect. That was the new thing: "God became man." The quote in Butler was:
. . . the soul of Jesus Christ, produced from nothing . . .
God gained an admirer He did not have previously. In over my head.
The worship of Jesus towards His Father is a bit different insofar as this is one member of the Godhead paying homage to another, whereas our worship is that of the fundamentally and essentially lesser or inferior creature towards the infinite Creator (adoration). With Jesus and His Father, it is the relationship of subordination that Jesus willingly took on when He became man (Philippians 2:5-11: what is called the kenosis). In that sense he "worships" His Father, while at all times remaining equal to Him in essence.
Accordingly, I submit that this distinction may be the reason why I haven't been able to find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus "worships" the Father (Greek: proskuneo), or "the Son worshiped the Father," etc. If anyone finds such a verse, please let me know. The Greek word (usually "worship" in English translation) is frequently applied to people worshiping Jesus or the Father.
But, of course, as an observant Jew, Jesus attended Temple and synagogue services and worshiped the Father insofar as the services involved that. One might say this was similar to His getting baptized, even though He had no sin to get rid of. It was more of a love relationship and the submission of Son to Father within the trinitarian Godhead, without implying inequality (as Jesus also "submitted" to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51) and He certainly wasn't inferior to them.
See also: Catholic Encyclopedia: "Christian Worship".
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 07:50 pm |
|
One thing about this that makes me uneasy is the suggestion that Jesus was not fully divine from the beginning.
No! That is the heresy of Nestorianism. Well, the idea that Jesus grew in consciousness to figure out that He was God, is Nestorianism or something akin to it. This is in direct contradiction to the orthodox Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but it is very common in liberal theological circles and even (mostly unwittingly) in more orthodox Protestant realms.
It's not totally clear, though, what you are referring to. The Butler quote merely stated that the soul of Jesus had a beginning; was created. That's perfectly orthodox and doesn't deny His divinity in the least. To say that Jesus was created, on the other hand, is the heresy of Arianism.
The Incarnation was something new, that had a starting-point in time. But the divinity of Jesus never had a beginning anymore than the divinity of God the Father or the Holy Spirit did. All three Persons are eternal, and God. The Hypostatic Union was the development in Christology that sought to explain the relationship of the Divine and Human Natures in Jesus. He acquired the latter but always possessed at all times the former, from eternity.
Lots of folks today either don't understand these things or outright deny them. This is why we have the Church, to guide us into correct theology, because, as with a journey to another town, a mere foot in the wrong direction initially can lead to being 500 miles off-target later on.
Last edited on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 08:56 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
The worship of Jesus towards His Father is a bit different insofar as this is one member of the Godhead paying homage to another, whereas our worship is that of the fundamentally and essentially lesser or inferior creature towards the infinite Creator (adoration). With Jesus and His Father, it is the relationship of subordination that Jesus willingly took on when He became man (Philippians 2:5-11: what is called the kenosis). In that sense he "worships" His Father, while at all times remaining equal to Him in essence.
Accordingly, I submit that this distinction may be the reason why I haven't been able to find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus "worships" the Father (Greek: proskuneo), or "the Son worshiped the Father," etc. If anyone finds such a verse, please let me know. The Greek word (usually "worship" in English translation) is frequently applied to people worshiping Jesus or the Father.
The closest I’m able to come is 1 Corinthians 15:28: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (Rheims-Challoner).
In the same sense, Jesus says of himself (John 8:28–29 RSVCE): “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.” He also explains these things in his dual statements: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
David
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 09:06 pm |
|
Hi David,
Interesting. I'd still have to say, though, that those come under the general area of "submission" rather than worship per se. I would note, too, that we have the motif of Jesus submitting to the Father, but there are also indications of something roughly (but probably not quite) the opposite of that. You noted 1 Corinthians 15:28: "that God may be all in all" but there is also Colossians 3:11: "but Christ {is} all, and in all." (KJV).
Note that the Jehovah's Witnesses distort this verse and also John 14:28 to "prove" that Jesus was a created being and lesser than God. I know you're not trying to do that (just wanna make that clear!) . . .
The following passages (KJV) round out the "biblical picture" a bit:
JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.
JOHN 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you.
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 10:38 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
The worship of Jesus towards His Father is a bit different insofar as this is one member of the Godhead paying homage to another, whereas our worship is that of the fundamentally and essentially lesser or inferior creature towards the infinite Creator (adoration).
This is a precious truth. It touches me that, out of the incarnation, God the Father receives the tribute of obedient submission from another member of the Godhead.
With Jesus and His Father, it is the relationship of subordination that Jesus willingly took on when He became man (Philippians 2:5-11: what is called the kenosis).
But was there not always this sort of relationship between God the Father and God the Son-- equality but submission by the Son to the Father? Is it a question of degree after agreeing to the incarnation, as in becoming obedient to death on the cross?
One thing about this that makes me uneasy is the suggestion that Jesus was not fully divine from the beginning.
No! That is the heresy of Nestorianism. Well, the idea that Jesus grew in consciousness to figure out that He was God, is Nestorianism or something akin to it. This is in direct contradiction to the orthodox Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but it is very common in liberal theological circles and even (mostly unwittingly) in more orthodox Protestant realms.
It's not totally clear, though, what you are referring to.
I was referring to my own earlier comments not to Butler's.
How far back toward infancy does the orthodox Catholic position place Jesus' awareness of His own divinity and mission? I have heard Catholics say that even as a little baby Jesus experienced what we would regard as adult (if not godlike) understanding and reflection.
It's going to take me a while to get used to the idea of Christ the Son being present in heaven with the Father as Jesus Christ on the cross believes Himself to have been forsaken by the Father, and to get used to the idea of Christ the Son being present in heaven with the Father as Jesus Christ tells Mary in the garden that He has not yet ascended to the Father.
Lots of folks today either don't understand these things or outright deny them. This is why we have the Church, to guide us into correct theology, because, as with a journey to another town, a mere foot in the wrong direction initially can lead to being 500 miles off-target later on.
And that's why I'm so grateful for the help received on this forum. Thank you very much. I've learned a lot. You've helped clean up my theology some and helped me become a better Catholic today. Thanks for your patience.
Becky
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 01:40 am |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:I'd still have to say, though, that those come under the general area of "submission" rather than worship per se.
Right. That’s why I worded my response, “The closest I’m able to come is….” It’s not an exact match, but it’s the best I can do in finding a scriptural passage that will do justice to your idea. You might have better luck with Denzinger; it’s not the bible, but the texts are authoritative.
Intercessor wrote:I have heard Catholics say that even as a little baby Jesus experienced what we would regard as adult (if not godlike) understanding and reflection.
Correct. Theologians have asserted this for centuries. The doctrine’s further ramifications are reflected in the following passage from the encyclical Mystici Corporis (§75) by Pope Pius XII:
For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescesion of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity. In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.
This encyclical is available online here and here.
David
|
|
|
Intercessor Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 962 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 02:33 am |
|
Intercessor wrote:
I have heard Catholics say that even as a little baby Jesus experienced what we would regard as adult (if not godlike) understanding and reflection.
David W. Emery wrote:
Correct. Theologians have asserted this for centuries. The doctrine’s further ramifications are reflected in the following passage from the encyclical Mystici Corporis (§75) by Pope Pius XII:
For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescesion of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity. In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.
Thank you, David. This is a beautiful and powerful passage. Thanks, also, for the link.
One more surprising truth to embrace--- my poor mind has embraced about all the new truths it can process for one day. Maybe tomorrow morning I'll be ready to embrace another one. 
____________________ "If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
NorthStar Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
Perhaps I can add a little something to this discussion from the Orthodox understanding of these matters as well. After all, the Eastern Church seemed to be more inclined to these questions than the West. (that's not a criticism of the West at all, as at times the East's obsession with these issues caused great sin within the Church)
Anyhoo......
Intercessor wrote: It's about time I got some of these things straightened out in my thinking. My views of the incarnation, Christ's ministry, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension have all been colored by an understanding formed in early childhood (and never before challenged) that God the Son was not in heaven between the incarnation and the ascension. I understand you to be saying He was.
Most definitely! The Holy Trinity is one God in three hypostasis. He is 3 yet indivisible. The Logos of God, is what we often call 'the Word' of God in English (in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God). but Word is sort of simple translation of the actual Greek word Logos. Logos not only implies the spoken Word, but much more, including logic and reason and wisdom of God, amongst other things. The Logos was always present with the Father because the Logos is God. From an Eastern perspective many protestant Chruches tend to seperate the Trinity far too much. For example praying in the name of Jesus alone etc...almost every Orthodox prayer will start with an invocation of the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As a protestant, I don't think I ever saw this. (BTW I too was a baptist at one point in my Protestant journey)
Looks as if I incorrectly "tolerated" a view of a third of the Trinity's being ripped away for thirty-three years. It seems very foolish now since I know the Trinity cannot be divided. Yet the limitations of language (and of young minds in formation) certainly lead Protestants to that view. (I shouldn't speak for all Protestants. Probably the ministers trained in theology had that clear decades ago.)
If you want very precise language, read the the Ecumenical Councils, in particular the 3rd and 4th councils, which explain in painful, hairsplitting detail these doctrines...lol! Beware, they will give you a headache though. 
I think maybe I'm coming to a more Catholic understanding of who Jesus was. I've always seen Jesus Christ as the being created when, by the will of God the Father and by the power of God the Holy Spirit, God the Son was wrapped in human flesh. But if God the Son remains in heaven with the other two members of the Trinity during Jesus' lifetime, Jesus perhaps has an even closer experience to ours since we also are in the position of being alive and having Christ formed in us while Christ is also still in heaven with the other members of the Trinity. Am I making any sense?
From an Orthodox understanding it makes perfect sense. In one sense Jesus (that being the human being) didn't exist until He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But the pre-Incarnate Christ, the Logos of God, always existed with the Father was never seperated from the the other two members of the Trinity. It was the Logos that condecended, took flesh from the Virgin, and united human nature to Divine nature. In the Orthodox understanding, it is the entire Incarnation (as St. Athanasius wrote) that saves us, not just the cross as in some western churches. It is the whole life, death and Resurrection that saves, because our human nature was united to the Divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ. And as you pointed out, because the Logos was never seperated from the Trinity, it is a union like any other. Not just human nature, but material nature is united to Divinity. St. Maximus wrote that not just humanity is saved, but the entire Cosmos through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
One thing about this that makes me uneasy is the suggestion that Jesus was not fully divine from the beginning. For example, I do not believe that he sinned or behaved inappropriately as a child or as a youth.
Well, it depends on what you mean by inappropriately? What's inappropriate? Certainly He never sinned, but....He was a real human child, and a real human man. He felt what we feel, experience what we experience, he felt hunger, felt sad, felt happy, cried, smiled, and also did the "icky" things we do, like go to the bathroom, wipe our noses, etc... This is why the fathers often called the Incarnation a scandal....the scandal that the infinite God would condescend to be like us in EVERY WAY, save for sin. But He did so out of Love, love so inexpressible that He died the worst death every created by mankind. Now that's love!
How far back toward infancy does the orthodox Catholic position place Jesus' awareness of His own divinity and mission? I have heard Catholics say that even as a little baby Jesus experienced what we would regard as adult (if not godlike) understanding and reflection.
This was already answered, but Jesus was God. And Jesus was human. In His humanity he had the limited knowledge of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant of the early 1st century. As God, well...He was God. This is just one of those mysteries that our human minds cannot grasp. How can He be both, well, how could He walk on water etc??? This is just a mystery, and we must be careful not to over emphasize one over the other. I'm not sure it's right to say Jesus the human baby was completely self aware of all things, that would be border line Eutychianism (which stated the the Divine nature totally obliterated the human nature, "as a drop of honey in the sea" or Appolinariansim , or Monothelitism etc. If you don't know much about these lines of thought, well, they're complicated...lol! Wikipedia has introductory articles about them, but of course like all things wiki, cross reference them with other sources, or just ask.
The 3rd-6th Ecumenical councils go into, again hairsplitting detail of all these issues. For those of us in the historic Apostolic Churches, both East and West, these issues were resolved centuries upon centuries ago. But as a former protestant I know these were all brand new to me. Anyways, I wouldn't quite say the "baby Jesus" matches the Christmas cards or stories we're told of, but again there never was a time when the Jesus wasn't God the Logos.
In the end, it's a mystery and no amount of theoligizing or thinking will ever be able to comprehend it in it's totality.
Hope this helps,
Chuck
edited to change refererence to a saint to the correct saint 
Last edited on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 06:06 pm by NorthStar
|
|
| | |