| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/15/2007 1:02:32 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Locked at poster’s request |
Posted on 06/13/2007 4:39:26 AM PDT by fr maximilian mary
Franciscan (Scotistic) Thesis: Absolute Primacy Of Christ -Jesus Christ was absolutely predestined for grace and glory in His Incarnation quite apart from any question of sin. The elect (men and angels) were chosen and predestined in Him by an eternal decree. And this before the universe had been created.
Supporters of this:
-St. Maximus the Confessor: “This [the Incarnation] is that great and hidden mystery. This is the blessed end for which all things were created. This is the divine purpose foreknown before the beginning of creation… Really, it was for the sake of Christ, that is the mystery of Christ, that all the ages and all the things of all the ages themselves received the beginning and end of existence in Christ.”
-St. Francis De Sales: The primary reason for the Incarnation was that God “might communicate Himself” outside Himself (ad extra). From all eternity He saw that the most excellent way to do this was in “uniting Himself to some created nature, in such sort that the creature might be engrafted and implanted in the divinity, and become one single Person with it.” Thus God willed the Incarnation. Through Christ and “for His sake” God willed to pour out His goodness on other creatures thus choosing to “create men and angels to accompany His Son, to participate in His grace and glory, to adore and praise Him forever.”
-St. Albert the Great: In his commentary on the Sentences he writes, “to the extent that I can offer my opinion, I believe that the Son of God would have become man even if there had been no sin… Nevertheless, on this subject I say nothing in a definitive manner; but I believe that what I said is more in harmony with the piety of faith.”
Bl. John Duns Scotus:
The absolute primacy of Christ begins with God’s plan. So we can say that it begins from above, and not from below (from man). It begins with God. Scotus seeks to see the created world form God’s point of view. And God, he would hold, does not subordinate His eternal decrees to man’s temporal situation. God rather in His goodness, freely wills to create the universe according to a fixed plan.
The key note to Scotus’ system is the word "predestination"
Note the distinction again from a Calvinist predestination: God has a fixed plan for creation, but man is still free. For Scotus, the origin of all creation rests on predestination. Scotus defines Predestination as "An act of divine will which destines (chooses or elects) an intellectual creature to grace and glory." Predestination is characterized by 2 activities:
1) eternal: the eternal act outside of time. This refers to the intention of God for all eternity. This specifically refers to the activity of "determining the end." Meaning determining the goal or purpose or final cause of all of God’s activity outside of Himself.
2) temporal: " The Execution of His foreseen plan in time." This means the gradual realization of His eternal plan in time.
-Therefore, we have a single plan of predestination with 2 activities that bring it about. Intention and execution. The intention which God freely chooses from eternity always precedes the execution of His intention in time. The example used by Scotists is that of a sculptor. First the artist sees in his mind a life-size wooden statue (say, of Sacred Heart of Jesus) and he wants to carve this wooden statue.
The first thing the sculptor does is have an intention to carve the statue. Now to execute that intention, he obtains a large chunk of wood. He brings it to a studio and begins to carve. What we can see in this process is that the intention is first and the execution is second, and in a certain sense we can say that the execution (the chunk of wood) is less perfect compared to what the final statue would be (the more perfect). But the sculptor throughout the process sees the Sacred Heart of Jesus in that wood. That intention is what moves the execution of the plan along. So in the sculptors activity of intention, the perfect is willed and is seen first. Whereas, in the activity of execution, he begins with the less perfect and gradually moves to the perfect.
Applying this to subject of primacy of Christ: God is the divine artist. The first thing he does is wills and predestines the Most sacred Heart of Jesus to the maximum grace and glory as possible. This maximum grace in glory is by virtue of the personal union that the human heart of Jesus will have with the eternal Word in the Incarnation. This happens through the hypostatic union. Now through the activity of the intention God wills the end of all creation; The goal and height of all creation: Jesus Christ.
To get to this goal of all creation, God sets his plan in motion (the execution), with the creation of the universe. God moves from the lesser perfect to the most perfect realization of his eternal decree. (Chunk of wood to the actual statue). That’s why he starts with creation. The most perfect of his eternal decree is the grace and glory of Jesus Christ. (Scotus says that Scripture supports this. Jesus is the high point of creation.) Thus the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the first created being willed by God and was done so for all eternity and the Sacred Heart is predestined to the height of Glory. The Sacred Heart is the goal of all creation. What God seeks to realize in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4). So this eternal intention of God and the temporal execution towards this end, is what is fixed by predestination. Secondly, all other rational creatures are predestined in, thru, and for Jesus Christ.
The predestination is the positive act of the divine will which destines a rational creature to grace and glory. This refers first to Jesus Christ in his humanity, and also to all the saints and angels.
For Scotus predestination is absolute, not relative, meaning that it is not relative to any created need or circumstance. Rather it is based on God’s own intrinsic goodness and moving creatures to himself for the optimum grace and glory.
Christ was willed (Incarnation) before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4). Jesus is first of all willed for His own sake and not first for man’s sake. In fact, men and angels are created for Him and He for God (cf. I Cor. 3:23). Jesus could not be predestined to grace and glory on account of sin....even though he will conquer sin in his mercy. Thus the Incarnation is the supreme work of God ad extra (outside of Himself) and it is not occasioned by sin. This predestination of Christ, of men, and of angels is one simultaneous act. So God destines all of the elect to grace and glory in Jesus Christ.
In Scotus’s Ordinatio he says:
1) God predestines Christ (in His humanity), saints and angels to glory before any foreseen sin.
2) Predestination is absolute in the intention of God and not based on future needs or sins of creatures.
3) Thirdly that Christ’s absolute predestination could not be "occasioned by sin" or even for the sake of men and angels.
a) After willing the Trinity, the first thing that God wills is the humanity of Jesus.
b) You don’t predestine the height of created glory based on the fall of an inferior creature.
Consequently, this is the view I hold. It also has implications for the Blessed Virgin as well, which I will post on at a later time.
In the meantime, Tom over at Disputations has started a discussion on the subject... Make sure you check out the discussion in the combox. You will find that Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean, F.I. has joined the discussion. Note what he says, for he wrote the book on this subject......literally! It's called A Primer on the Absolute Primacy of Christ.
Be sure to check out Fr. Maximilian's vlog series on this subject at AirMaria.com.
by Danny Garland Jr. at Irish-Catholic and Dangerous
I'm fully with you on this. That being the case, why do folks continue with the misnomer that the RCC is a Christian church? We make no such accommodation for the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses.
Alas, the RCC is not alone in this position. Consider certain Protestant churches that merit the same consideration. First to mind is the Episcopal denomination.
How far away from the narrow path of Truth can someone wander before he is on a different road?
I really don’t know. They should just come out and admit what they are up to. The Popes all say it right out don’t they? The Truth will set them free. Then the people who want to worship Christ can form their own church and those who want to worship Mary and the saints can go have theirs. It seems so logical, rather than all this angst and double-talk they got going on
Agreed; that is both unscriptural and un-Christian, and the Catholic Church is glad to agree with you.
Both the original poster and the author of the article have asked you to cease bashing false assumptions of the Catholic Church and to return to discussing the article. I too am going to ask you to please stop threadjacking and return to discussing the article, or to leave the thread.
“Mary takes part in the offering by consenting to the immolation of her Son.”
How does Mary consent to the “immolation” of her son when His death is not revealed until well into His ministry and then, it is revealed to the disciples? When it was told to her that she would conceive all that was revealed was that Jesus would be King.
The justification of the elect by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ would appear to be germane to a thread entitled, "The Primacy of Christ."
As illustrated on this thread, the RCC asserts the "Primacy of Christ" is somehow dependent on Mary, too, since some RC posters have stated here that Mary is indeed a "co-redemtrix."
Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "The Primacy of Christ and Mary and the Magisterium and Tradition and Doctrine and Dogma and the Mass."
Woe doggie(ma)! As far as I can tell, every statement put forth is based upon well-supported RCC teachings (doctrine, dogma and/or tradition), and attested by RCC Freepers.
If you disagree with what has been posted, you need to check with your priest. Or perhaps you ought to consider converting to Christianity.
It has not been illustrated or even suggested by Catholics on this thread that the Primacy of Christ is in any way dependant on Mary!
Once again, you fail to understand what the title “Co-redemptrix” means. I have explained it above. It does not in any way mean that the primacy of Christ is dependant on Our Lady. As I said before, all privileges of Mary come from Christ.
God Bless.
Which came first, Danny boy, the chicken or the egg?
Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): “If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema” (Denzinger, n. 950)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
Once again, you fail to understand what the title "Co-redemptrix" means. I have explained it above. It does not in any way mean that the primacy of Christ is dependant on Our Lady.
I will refer you to your own statement and blue-duncan's questioning of that statement in your post #104...
BLUE-DUNCAN: How does Mary consent to the "immolation" of her son when His death is not revealed until well into His ministry and then, it is revealed to the disciples? When it was told to her that she would conceive all that was revealed was that Jesus would be King. 104 posted on 06/14/2007 1:49:46 PM PDT by blue-duncan DANNY: "Mary takes part in the offering by consenting to the immolation of her Son."
So you see, your own statement makes Mary's consent "a taking part in the offering.
Indeed, by your own words it would appear without "Mary's consent" Christ could not have been sacrificed for your sins and mine, and God's plan of salvation would be nixed before it left the gate.
The RCC's problem, one among many, is the term "co-redemptrix," a designation loaded with error, blasphemy and deceit. Mary does not redeem anyone, nor does she facilitate our redemption. She has nothing to do with our salvation. Zilch. May God help those who believe this lie to run from it.
And thanks for that excellent find from Trent, that ever-present goodie-bag for we who have been anathematized.
One Priest (Christ) and one Sacrifice that is both once and eternal.
NOW, THAT SAID: This has nothing to do with the original post. Please quit threadjacking.
Since no one wants to talk about Jesus, let's talk about Mary (at the bidding of non-Catholics to boot!). My question is this--is Mary just used by God as an incubator? Is she just like a plastic cup to be used and thrown away, or rather crushed on Calvary?
God could have formed the New Adam from the dust of the earth, as He did the first Adam. But He did not. Why? Perhaps God, who is love, freely chose to include Mary as part of His plan?
This is a far cry from "Mary worship". She is not the Word made flesh; she is not the Redeemer. She is the New Eve who cooperates with and subordinate to Christ who alone is the great High Priest and Redeemer.
at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.Amen!!!
“She has nothing to do with our salvation.”
Oh, really? Who was it then that gave the Incarnate Christ his body? Who was it who said “Yes” to the angel and accepted the reponsibility of being the Mother of God?
Mary takes part in the offering of Christ because Christ willed it. He didn’t need Mary to become Incarnate, yet He chose her to be His Mother and to participate in the act of redemption. Christ could have been sacrificed for our sins without Mary, but He chose to have Mary involved.
To answer Blue-Duncan, see Luke 2:34-35 and also see the Crucifixion accounts where Mary is at the foot of the Cross praying for her Son and Luke 2:34-35 is fulfilled. Mary pondered in her heart the things told to her while Christ was still a child. If Mary didn’t have an idea of what was to be expected of her from the Angel, her “fiat” would not have been valid.
Once again, this post isn’t about Mary. It is about the primacy of Christ. It would be nice to start talking about that instead of misrepresenting the teachings of the Church on Mary.
God Bless.
"And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice saying, 'Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!'" (Luke 1:42).
Come Holy Spirit!
Help me out here, are you trying to say that Jesus did not come to save sinners? St. Paul says “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (1 Timothy 1:15)
Then you are highly misinformed.
Things mentioned by Protestant FReepers on this thread that are erroneous (this list is not exhaustive):
...The people “join with Mary”, so they’re all God now and every mass they take the Lord and offer Him up. It’s black arts, baby...
...Yes, Mary has the power, Jesus is “the sacrificial victim”, ie powerless...
...So now we have the RCC asserting Mary sacrificed Jesus rather than God Almighty sacrificed Jesus....
...My thoughts exactly. Not only is she the mother of God, she is God. They should just admit it...
Those are just a few of the ones that I noticed. The Church doesn't teach any of these things that other FReepers have claimed it does. To your credit, none of those erroneous statements aren't yours. Now... if you're interested in discussing the post, please discuss the post. Otherwise, please let everyone else discuss the post.
The Doctor is IN.
By your logic, we should hunt down the mother of Saddam Hussein and execute her, too.
I couldn’t find the error. Based upon the fundamental positions of the RCC, all this follows. Logic dictates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.