tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post1787324379248832389..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: The Immaculate Birth of MaryFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77514670211468110692010-09-10T14:18:47.823-07:002010-09-10T14:18:47.823-07:00@Peregrinus (Sept 10, 10:58pm),
I agree with your...@Peregrinus (Sept 10, 10:58pm),<br /><br />I agree with your clarification/qualification of my statement regarding the human nature after sin...it is much better to speak of the active transmission of the human nature from father to child and the passing down of original sin together with that nature...<br /><br />Exactly, because Adam did not transmit the human nature to Christ through any man, but the nature was taken materially from the Blessed Virgin Mary (who contributed no active power in Christ's generation), the Son of God took to himself a pure and integral human nature.<br /><br />Regarding the Common Doctor's discussion of the Immaculate Conception, I think that you might be slightly mis-interpreting what he says...<br /><br />Though nearly everyone says it, the problem with the Immaculate Conception is, for St. Thomas, not so much about the fact that it occurred before Christ [he holds that Mary was purified of original sin while yet in the womb, before the coming of the Messiah]. The real problem, for Thomas, is to understand how Mary can be saved and sanctified before she is conceived. Indeed, he argues that because she did not exist before her conception, she cannot be purified/sanctified until after her conception...this means that she would be conceived with original sin, but then healed immediately. <br />Of course, St. Thomas is not correct...Mary was preserved from original sin, neither before nor after her conception, but at the very moment of her conception...<br />This would be something good to talk more about, but I have to end the comments here.<br /><br />Peregrine, I can tell that you have a good background in theology; so I would very much enjoy your comments on other posts as they are written. Thank you for the comments you have been making on recent posts!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23509126237425265442010-09-10T13:58:19.258-07:002010-09-10T13:58:19.258-07:00Two clarifications are in order concerning this ve...Two clarifications are in order concerning this very difficult subject. The phrase Anonymous cites from the article may not be contradictory, but it is, at the very least, imprecise. The guilt of Adam is <i>not</i> “incumbent upon the whole [of] human nature.” It is only “incumbent upon” or, better put, affects those to whom Adam has “transmitted” human nature (see <i>CCC</i>, Para. 404). The Christ neither bore the stain of original sin nor suffered from the affects of its guilt because, as you note, Reginalde, He did not ultimately receive His human nature from Adam. He did, nonetheless, precisely speaking, have the same nature as our first parent after the Fall, i.e., a human one. It was just not in the same condition or “state” as Adam’s, i.e., a fallen one (<i> op. cit.</i>). <br /><br />Aquinas is, of course, correct in arguing that Mary had to be saved with the rest of the offspring of Adam. He is not, however, correct in assuming, as he seems to, that she could not be saved anticipatorily. God, in fact, applied the merits of the Christ’s atonement, including the removal of guilt or redemption, to Mary anticipatorily, as the Church teaches (see <i> Lumen gentium</i>, 53 & <i> CCC</i>, Para. 492; cf. <i> ST</i> IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2um). Her “singular” sanctification also included her “more sublime” redemption (see <i> Ineffabilis Deus</i> & <i> Lumen gentium</i>, 53).<br /><br />Note that I may misunderstand the Angelic Doctor’s position represented by the last quotation in the article from his writings, since I have neither the sentence in the original language nor the context for it.Peregrinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366226263431558600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-22615747485879366162010-09-09T12:38:17.361-07:002010-09-09T12:38:17.361-07:00Brad,
I especially like your reference to Mary as...Brad,<br /><br />I especially like your reference to Mary as the Trinity's "most perfect creature"...<br />There are, in fact, only three creatures which could not have been created more perfectly...<br />1) The beatific vision of God<br />2) The sacred Humanity of Jesus Christ<br />3) The Mother of God, Mary ever-virgin<br /><br />How great this mystery...she is truly the "Fairest daughter of our race!"Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-50742247929547977982010-09-09T09:10:48.655-07:002010-09-09T09:10:48.655-07:00Hail Mary! Hyperdulia, Queen of heaven and earth!...Hail Mary! Hyperdulia, Queen of heaven and earth! Imagine, arguably God's mightiest creature, a seraphim, Gabriel, paling before her whom he was sent to address! The proof of her humble perfection is that -- no doubt -- she would have received her own inferior while on her knees before him.<br /><br />I beg everyone to read Mary of Agreda's (a baroque Spanish nun) Mystical City of God for a life-changing awakening regarding who the Virgin is: the Trinity's most perfect creature, before whom seraphim and devils must bow. The $15 abridged version of the book will do this trick. Anyone who reads my words, please don't disregard this tiny bit of anonymous internet advice.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-32830160062994202552010-09-09T08:29:39.260-07:002010-09-09T08:29:39.260-07:00Anonymous (Sept 9, 5:05pm)...
Original sin is a si...Anonymous (Sept 9, 5:05pm)...<br />Original sin is a sin of nature, not something of the person proper...it is NOT A PERSONAL SIN...thus, you cannot say that the guilt is incumbent upon the human person...<br /><br />Christ's human nature was free both from the stain of sin itself, and from the guilt due to sin. He had no need of a savior because he was in no way under original sin.<br />There is no contradiction...the human nature Christ received was formed by the Holy Spirit and, thus, was in no way touched by original sin.<br /><br />I hope that helps to clarify.<br />PeaceFather Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60485579994113431972010-09-09T08:05:17.846-07:002010-09-09T08:05:17.846-07:00"Though she was completely free from original..."Though she was completely free from original sin, she was not free from the guilt incumbent upon the whole human nature – this is what separated Mary from the Christ..." This statement seems to contain a contradiction with the fact that Jesus Christ possesses a HUMAN nature. I would suggest the contradiction can be removed by replacing the word "nature" with the word "person." The reason I think this will remove the contradiction is that Mary is a HUMAN person, while Jesus Christ is a DIVINE person Who took on a human nature. THAT, I think, is a key difference that separates our Blessed Mother from her Son, our Lord.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com