tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post6886155015906285627..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, why isn't the Holy Spirit called his father?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49033296200894811812012-01-03T14:51:38.677-08:002012-01-03T14:51:38.677-08:00GregB,
Yes, you have the consubstantial thing exac...GregB,<br />Yes, you have the consubstantial thing exactly right!<br /><br />I don't know whether Mary is called Queen of Contemplatives ... as you mention, she is certainly the perfect model of contemplative prayer -- for she conceived Christ in her hear/soul/mind before she conceived him in her womb.<br /><br />Peace and blessings to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-88121344058380232922012-01-03T12:02:28.138-08:002012-01-03T12:02:28.138-08:00Father Erlenbush,
When I think about the Incarnat...Father Erlenbush,<br /><br />When I think about the Incarnation, and the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit, I see it from the vantage point of Contemplative Prayer. More specifically, the Prayer of Union that takes place in what St. Teresa of Avila calls the Seventh Mansions-Spiritual Marriage. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was the ideal preparation for this Prayer of Union, and when joined with Mary's fiat, produced the conformity of wills that brought about the Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union of Jesus. To me the Incarnation is the highest form of the Prayer of Union that is possible for a purely human contemplative. Mary is called the patroness of contemplatives. Has Mary ever been given the title of the Queen of Contemplatives? <br /><br />There has been some reference made in the postings as to the form in which Jesus is consubstantial with the other Two Persons of the Holy Trinity. To me this has a direct application as to the way that God created Eve and the generation of Christ's human nature. The importance of Eve being made from a rib of Adam, being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, is that she was consubstantial with Adam. Of all the creatures that God brought before Adam only Eve was consubstantial, and made in the image and likeness of God. In the same way Christ, being made from a part of Mary's body through conception and birth, took on a humanity that is consubstantial with Mary.<br /><br />-GregBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9086719953134795812012-01-02T08:43:53.076-08:002012-01-02T08:43:53.076-08:00wpr,
In his biblical commentaries especially, St. ...wpr,<br />In his biblical commentaries especially, St. Thomas gives good support to the idea of calling Jesus "Father" ... indeed, several of the Church Fathers (no citation handy) say that the prayer "Our Father" refers primarily to God the Father, but also to the Trinity as a whole.<br /><br />What is important to remember is that God the Father is the natural Father of God the Son ... but not our natural father. Rather, by grace, the whole Trinity is our Father.<br />Still, there is something to the fact that we are "sons in the Son" ... we are identified in a particular way as the Body of Christ, and this lends to the idea of calling God the Father "our Father" in a more specific sense (but only as a matter of appropriation).<br /><br />So, yes, Jesus is most certainly our Father -- even in his humanity, he is the Father of those saved by grace.<br /><br />Many modern theologians scoff at the whole idea of calling all three persons "Father" in relation to us (see especially Fr. Karl Rahner) ... the simple fact is that the Church does occasionally call Jesus "Father" -- especially when applying certain Old Testament prophecies to the Lord (as you mentioned). Also, the Holy Spirit is sometimes called "Father" -- as in "Veni Pater pauperum", Come, Father of the poor; from the Veni, Sancte Spiritus.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89552145194200976412012-01-02T08:24:53.711-08:002012-01-02T08:24:53.711-08:00Father,
I have a question somewhat related to...Father,<br /><br /> I have a question somewhat related to this post. Would it be appropriate to generally call Jesus "Father?" This came up when a window in my Advent calendar said (referring to Jesus) "He's a baby, but we can call Him Father!" (citing Jn 8:19). I suspected the answer is no, since the First and Second Persons of the Trinity are distinct (and Father seems to be a name for a person), but another Catholic I know suggested that it is okay since God is one. I also came across Isaiah 9:5: "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace." Not sure how that fits in. Has this been addressed by the Fathers or Doctors? Thanks a lot.wprnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62860054829771667182012-01-01T16:32:56.403-08:002012-01-01T16:32:56.403-08:00Here is a quote from St. Augustine (Sermon 184.2):...Here is a quote from St. Augustine (Sermon 184.2):<br />"Natus est Christus et de patre et de matre; et sine patre et sine matre: de patre Deus, de matre homo; sine matre Deus, sine patre homo"<br />Christ has been born both of a Father and a Mother; and also without a father and a mother; God from the Father, Man from the Mother; God without mother, and Man without father.<br /><br />It is also said: "Of the Father without a mother, of the Mother without a father".<br /><br />Beautiful to meditate upon! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62439339166896256972012-01-01T16:26:20.053-08:002012-01-01T16:26:20.053-08:00Maestro (Jonathan),
I mean to say that Jesus' ...Maestro (Jonathan),<br />I mean to say that Jesus' humanity is not fathered by God the Father.<br /><br />Of course, as you rightly point out, the one Person, Jesus, who is both God and Man, is the natural Son of God the Father -- and this was really a major point of my article (since, we do not say he is an adopted son in his humanity, but that there is only one filiation [sonship] in Christ, and this is his identity as eternally begotten of the Father).<br /><br />So, yes, Jesus is the natural Son of God -- and he is not an adopted son, not even by his human nature; because he is already the natural Son by his divine nature.<br />Thus, though he has no father from his humanity (i.e. no one fathered his humanity), I suppose we may say that "in" his humanity he is still the natural Son of the Father (by virtue of the fact that he is one Person, God the Son).<br /><br />Ok, hope I'm making it more clear ... and not muddying the waters! :-)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3595287723751157142012-01-01T16:17:59.214-08:002012-01-01T16:17:59.214-08:00Thank you, Father, that does make it a bit clearer...Thank you, Father, that does make it a bit clearer. So there are also the divine processions to be taken into consideration.<br /><br />One more thing, however: You said that God the Father is the father of Jesus in his divinity, but not in his humanity. Why then does Ludwig Ott list the following as <i>De Fide</i>: "Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God"?MaestroJMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06552734342224710734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3161472449378489582012-01-01T15:58:14.503-08:002012-01-01T15:58:14.503-08:00Jonathan,
Good questions ... it is indeed a comple...Jonathan,<br />Good questions ... it is indeed a complex point.<br /><br />What we must remember is that God the Father is the Father of Jesus in his divinity, not in his humanity ... as God, Jesus has only a Father (God the Father); as man, Jesus only has a mother (Mary) -- there is an ancient verse about this, but I don't have it readily available ... something like "God without mother and Man without father" (St. Thomas quotes it somewhere in his commentary on Hebrews ... on the passage "he is like Melchizedech, without mother or father, without generation". <br /><br /><br />So, Jesus, as man, is not equal to the Father -- this is why he says "The Father is greater than I".<br />But, as God, he is equal to the Father and of the same nature as the Father, hence he is the Son of the Father.<br /><br />But, as God, the Word is not the Son of the Spirit because the Spirit does not beget the Word, nor does the Word proceed from the Spirit ... rather the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son -- and this is not a "begetting", for the Spirit is not a son, but he is rather the "Breath" ("Spiritus") which proceeds from both the Father and the Son (and principally from the Father). <br /><br />Thus, neither is the Spirit the father of the Son nor is the Son the father of the Spirit -- but there is only one Father, and one Son of the Father, and one Spirit of the Father and of the Son.<br /><br />And, in his humanity, Christ is not equal or consubstantial with the Father or the Spirit ... but only in his divinity, for he is truly God.<br /><br />Hope that it is clearer now! Peace and blessings to you ... and happy feast of Mary Mother of God! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-64264940702074320792012-01-01T15:22:10.591-08:002012-01-01T15:22:10.591-08:00Father Erlenbush,
I have a question that is somew...Father Erlenbush,<br /><br />I have a question that is somewhat related to Matt R.'s question, above. You say that in His humanity, Christ is not of the same nature and consubstantial with the Holy Spirit, and you give that as a reason why we do not call the Holy Spirit the father of Jesus. So I was wondering, is Christ in His humanity equal in nature and consubstantial with the Father, then? This would mean that the Father also has a human nature, which seems rather absurd. So on what account do we call the First Person the father of Christ - not only in Christ's divinity, but also his humanity - if Christ in his humanity is not equal to the Father?<br /><br />Similarly: you say that because The First person and the Second person are equal and coeternal in their divinity, Christ can be said to be the Son of the First Person (hence the Father). But is Christ not also equal and coeternal, in His divinity, to the Holy Spirit? If so, would it not also seem to follow that we could call the Spirit the father of Christ?<br /><br />I hope I've expressed myself intelligibly. And by the way, in no way do I doubt what you are trying to defend; I am merely trying to understand more. :-)<br /><br />In Christ,<br />JonathanMaestroJMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06552734342224710734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-27406466576138023392012-01-01T13:45:09.193-08:002012-01-01T13:45:09.193-08:00@Father S,
Yes, you are most certainly right to po...@Father S,<br />Yes, you are most certainly right to point out that Joseph is spouse of Mary in a way far different from that by which the Holy Spirit is Spouse of Mary ... Joseph is a spouse by virtue of betrothal and marriage, whereas the Holy Spirit is spouse by virtue of the most profound spiritual nuptials (and further insofar as Mary is the true Mother of God).<br /><br />Thank you for pointing to this nuance! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80781163534782919812011-12-31T20:54:48.823-08:002011-12-31T20:54:48.823-08:00@Father,
This post is predicated on an understand...@Father,<br /><br />This post is predicated on an understanding of a very nuanced point. That point is the spousal relationship between Our Lady and the Holy Spirit. Referring to Our Lady as the spouse of the Holy Spirit is ancient; it goes back to Patristic times. That being said, she is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit in the same way that she was the spouse of St. Joseph. <br /><br />I do not mean to put words in your mouth, so I wonder if you could speak to this distinction. I think that it goes to the very heart of this issue. <br /><br />Kind Regards, <br />Father S.Father S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30529039946775552222011-12-31T10:37:40.774-08:002011-12-31T10:37:40.774-08:00@A Sinner,
You didn't address Matthew 1:18 ......@A Sinner,<br />You didn't address Matthew 1:18 ... the point is that the Holy Spirit seems to be credited with the active generative power ... this is certainly what St. Chrysostom says.<br />Why didn't Matthew say "of the Father", if we out to attribute the work to the Father more than the Spirit? That is my question for you.<br /><br /><br />Regarding Christ's conception and birth ... yes, you are right, conception is often more associated with the Holy Spirit ... not (as you say) that Mary is an image of the Holy Spirit, but that Mary is the spouse of the Spirit and that the Child is conceived through the active power of the Holy Spirit.<br />Can you see that your hypothesis is very different from the tradition?<br /><br />In being the Mother of Jesus, Mary is a sign of the Father -- not so much of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br /><br />And St. Maximilian Kolbe's primary sense of speaking of Mary as the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit" refers to her Immaculate Conception -- not so much to her role as Mother of God and the conception of Christ.<br /><br /><br />I'm sorry, but I just don't think our conversation is going anywhere ... with this, I will have to let my points stand and refrain from further comments.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-12690082701401654902011-12-31T10:26:56.460-08:002011-12-31T10:26:56.460-08:00"Would you please address the Scriptural text..."Would you please address the Scriptural text I have now cited a couple of times?"<br /><br />I've never denied Mary was with child "of the Holy Spirit." The question is how. The Spirit clearly had a big role, the question is which role, or what analogy should be applied to it. The "of" here clearly doesn't mean that the child is the Holy Spirit's in the manner of a father to a son (the whole point of your post), so then the question becomes in what sense should we speak of the Holy Spirit's involvement.<br /><br />There is no doubt she was pregnant "of the Holy Spirit," but she was pregnant of the Holy Spirit with the Father's Son.<br /><br />"Secondly, please respond to the fact that the whole tradition sees the virgin birth from Mary as a sign of the eternal birth of the Son from the Father -- such that Mary begetting is an image of the Father begetting (rather than of the Holy Spirit)."<br /><br />Well, birth and conception are two different things as your own previous post on Christmas vs. the Annunciation points out. Begetting (ie, birthing) seems more associated with the Father-Son relationship in tradition, whereas the complex of ideas surrounding "Conception" (see St. Maximilian Kolbe on this) seems more associated with the Holy Spirit (hence we speak of the Spirit at the Annunciation, the conception, but emphasize the Father at the Nativity, the birth).<br /><br />I don't know what this sort of parallel set of associations implies, but it's interesting.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-61333831588986665572011-12-31T09:51:00.340-08:002011-12-31T09:51:00.340-08:00@A Sinner,
Would you please address the Scriptural...@A Sinner,<br />Would you please address the Scriptural text I have now cited a couple of times?<br />Matthew 1,18: "she was found with child, of the Holy Spirit."<br />For your ease ... the KJV and Douay-Rheims both say "of the Holy Spirit" ... the NRS says "from the Holy Spirit" ... Vulgate is "de" ... the Greek is "ek".<br /><br />On this verse, Chrysostom says "It was the Holy Ghost that wrought this miracle."<br /><br /><br />Secondly, please respond to the fact that the whole tradition sees the virgin birth from Mary as a sign of the eternal birth of the Son from the Father -- such that Mary begetting is an image of the Father begetting (rather than of the Holy Spirit).<br /><br />If we are not rooted in Scripture and Tradition ... then our speculative theology will be worth very little.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-21015019101743732272011-12-31T09:42:58.197-08:002011-12-31T09:42:58.197-08:00@Ellen an Michelangelo,
Thank you for your kind wo...@Ellen an Michelangelo,<br />Thank you for your kind words. +<br /><br />@Leumas,<br />I don't have any immediate plans to write on Luke 2:41-45 ... but perhaps some day.<br />Thanks for the encouragement, it is an important topic to be sure! +<br /><br />@Alessandro,<br />Yes, I think you are very much on the right track.<br /><br />When using words like "ontological order" we also have to be careful to point out that the Father does not cause the Son and neither is the Holy Spirit caused -- for they are all the uncaused Cause.<br />And, to be clear, you didn't say this and you didn't make any error, but I'm just pointing it out so as to avoid any possible confusion in the future. :-)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-55255176914588665122011-12-31T09:37:13.400-08:002011-12-31T09:37:13.400-08:00@Matt R,
The key words are "in his humanity&q...@Matt R,<br />The key words are "in his humanity" and "neither his body nor his soul" ... for the human nature of Jesus is not consubstantial with the Holy Spirit -- Jesus' body and soul are human, his humanity is human.<br /><br />Yes, as you say, St. Athanasius (and the whole tradition) teaches that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father and Holy Spirit -- and this is according to his divinity.<br />However, by his humanity, he is not consubstantial with the Holy Spirit, but with us [that is the language of the council of Chalcedon].<br /><br />Hope it makes sense now! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-38245476750351972632011-12-31T06:39:50.004-08:002011-12-31T06:39:50.004-08:00Hello Father. I am just finishing up reading Bless...Hello Father. I am just finishing up reading Blessed Newman's book Arians of the 4th Century. As a student of Athanasius, I have always found the topic of the Trinity to be fascinating and mysterious. I question one thing though that you stated. You say that the Son is not consubstantial with the Spirit. This can't be true. All of the persons (hypostasis) share the same substance (ousia). They would therefore have to be consubstantial sharing the divine substance of the Father...who begat the Son before all ages and sends His Spirit through the Son. Am I missing something there?Matt Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-83350745895338458332011-12-31T04:13:44.590-08:002011-12-31T04:13:44.590-08:00I second Iranaeus of New York's comment. Thank...I second Iranaeus of New York's comment. Thank you so much for doing this. Wishing you every blessing for 2012.ellennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-1966254374567946462011-12-31T02:45:15.435-08:002011-12-31T02:45:15.435-08:00I don't perfectly understand what the debate i...I don't perfectly understand what the debate is touching, to tell the truth, but I think that the order of the three persons within the Holy Trinity isn't just a matter of "logic", as "A Sinner" wrote. The order is an ontological order. The Holy Spirit is actually proceeding from the Father and/through the Son, while the Son isn't dependent at all, in His divine nature, on the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />I think (just to verify if I have it right), that the best description of Christ's "parents" to be like this: Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father alone according to His divinity, and the only begotten Son of Mary alone according to His humanity, yet as a single Person in two natures we can and must say that Jesus is Son both of the Father and of Mary. We may summarize the role of the Holy Spirit in three ways:<br />1) The 3rd Person in the Holy Trinity was responsible for the creation of the gamete of Jesus' body out of Mary's genetic material, not in the same way as a male would provide semen and conceive, but by a new immediate creation out of Mary's DNA and egg. As it was said before, Jesus was formed out of Mary's egg in the same way that Adam was formed out of clay in the Garden of Eden - neither matter could actually conceive by natural means, so it must be called a new creation out of pre-existing matter.<br /><br />2) The Holy Spirit breathed the newly formed soul of Jesus within the newly created gamete at the very same instant of conception.<br /><br />3) The Paraclete was (I suppose) responsible for the realization of the Hypostatic Union.<br /><br />I hope Father could confirm my interpretation, and if I'm wrong in any respect, I would like to know it... thanks!Alessandronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-51251692999311976002011-12-30T18:52:56.565-08:002011-12-30T18:52:56.565-08:00"If the Holy Spirit receives the Son, then th..."If the Holy Spirit receives the Son, then the logical order would be Father, Spirit, Son ... for the Father does not beget the Son into the Spirit, but Father and the Son spirate the Spirit."<br /><br />Caldecott's argument says these would be equivalent.<br /><br />He is not proposing some sort of pre-existent (even in the order of logic) Spirit to receive the Son. Rather he is proposing that the very relation (and the divine persons are relations subsisting, after all) of receptivity proceeds from the Father and (and through) the Son, that receptivity logically FOLLOWS generation.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-64266536631446270032011-12-30T14:47:14.722-08:002011-12-30T14:47:14.722-08:00Father,
Have you or will you post about Luke 2:41-...Father,<br />Have you or will you post about Luke 2:41-45? Protestant claim that this is evidence of Mary's carelessness, which goes contrary to her being without sin due to the merits of Jesus Christ OR they claim that this is evidence of her having more than one child. Can you make an article about this topic? Thank you!Leumasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78610312399795121812011-12-30T13:58:57.716-08:002011-12-30T13:58:57.716-08:00Father Ryan,
Thank you for the elegant exposition...Father Ryan,<br /><br />Thank you for the elegant exposition of the relationship of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit to the Incarnation, and for explaining that "Jesus is rightly called the Son of God, meaning the Son of God the Father – for the one Person (the Word) was begotten of the Father from all eternity." Happy Feast of the Holy Family, Father!Michelangelonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25244368842022860552011-12-30T13:08:19.899-08:002011-12-30T13:08:19.899-08:00@A Sinner,
If the Holy Spirit receives the Son, th...@A Sinner,<br />If the Holy Spirit receives the Son, then the logical order would be Father, Spirit, Son ... for the Father does not beget the Son into the Spirit, but Father and the Son spirate the Spirit.<br />Indeed, the Spirit is the wondrous exchange of love between the Father and the Son.<br /><br />And to change the analogy so that Mary is an image of the Holy Spirit completely changes everything ... it does violence to the tradition.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-41221567532488055582011-12-30T12:46:54.590-08:002011-12-30T12:46:54.590-08:00"The Son is not generated through the Holy Sp..."The Son is not generated through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son (as the early Eastern Fathers also maintained, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa)."<br /><br />I don't think Caldecott is denying this at all.<br /><br />"If the Son was eternally from the Father and the Holy Spirit"<br /><br />No one is saying this.<br /><br />Caldecott's point is to identify the person of the Holy Spirit with the "reception" of the Son generated by the Father, as it were. In this sense, his formulation affirms the "through the Son" aspect even more<br /><br />"In any case, the tradition of the Fathers maintains that the birth of Jesus from Mary is an image of his eternal birth from the Father"<br /><br />This is not excluded either by Caldecott's interpretation, it just would nuance it a little bit so that rather than identifying Mother with Father in the analogy, the emphasis would be on Mary's receptive role, more than her "generative" role.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56665725003951603102011-12-30T09:53:19.761-08:002011-12-30T09:53:19.761-08:00There is nothing more beautiful than learning some...There is nothing more beautiful than learning something new about God through this kind of reasoning:) Thank you for your shared wisdom Father!!!Irenaeus of New Yorkhttp://www.azoic.com/noreply@blogger.com