Posted on 08/06/2008 8:58:59 AM PDT by koinonia
More than two centuries before the Reformation, a theological debate broke out that pitted theologian Thomas Aquinas against an upstart from Britain, John Duns Scotus. In essence, the debate circled around the question, "Would Christmas have occurred if humanity had not sinned?"
Whereas Aquinas viewed the Incarnation as God's remedy for a fallen planet, his contemporary saw much more at stake. For Duns Scotus, the Word becoming flesh as described in the prologue to John's Gospel must surely represent the Creator's primary design, not some kind of afterthought or Plan B. Aquinas pointed to passages emphasizing the Cross as God's redemptive response to a broken relationship. Duns Scotus cited passages from Ephesians and Colossians on the cosmic Christ, in whom all things have their origin, hold together, and move toward consummation.
Did Jesus visit this planet as an accommodation to human failure or as the center point of all creation? Duns Scotus and his school suggested that Incarnation was the underlying motive for Creation, not merely a correction to it. Perhaps God spun off this vast universe for the singular purpose of sharing life and love, intending all along to join its very substance. "Eternity is in love with the inventions of time," wrote the poet William Blake...
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
>>I hate to ask “are you sure?”, but I’m going to wait and see how the (Latin) Catholics respond this one.<<
Uhmm..Yep.
>> I don’t have a big problem with this, except that Paul met Jesus in the flesh on the road to Damascus. So he’s a little more than an interpreter of of Jesus’ sayings as related to him by the other Apostles (he probably never read the Gospels as the Epistles almost certainly predate the Gospels by many years). I suspect the authors of the Gospels were well acquainted with Pauls writings and did not feel the need to add to them; as the purpose of the Gospels was different—document Jesus ministry for future generations, not describing Christian Theology in detail. <<
My only point was that the gospels include the actual words of Jesus; Paul doesn’t.
>> And, it seems obvious that Paul was the man chosen by God to work out the backbone of Christian Theology (much of which is very vague in those portions of Jesus sayings reported in the Gospels) and to record it for us fortunate folks 2,000 year later. <<
I’m VERY uncomfortable with trying to promote Paul as a top dude. His works take up by far the largest portion of the Table of Contents, but barely the largest portion of the actual text. (Luke and John give him a good run of the money.) You call the gospels “vague”; I’d suggest that they are a little more alien to our western logic. Paul explains the events of the gospels into our western logic. But if Paul’s letters explain the gospel, than the gospel is not a lesser authority than that which is explained!
And you’re presumption that Paul didn’t know the gospel when he wrote his letters since his letters were written first is deeply problematic: Matthew and Mark had origins earlier than Paul’s earliest letters (c. 50 AD), and certainly Paul heard what would become the content of the gospels told to him by the apostles.
Very interesting, although not the point I was making. My point was that the Lord was incarnate from the moment of the Annunciation, whatever calendar date that was, rather than at the time of His birth.
Oh, OK. Am I wrong, or doesn’t the Incarnation often refer to Christmas simply because he was revealed on that day.
I assume that references to Christmas as the celebration of the Incarnation reflect the inadequate knowledge of human biology of some our traditional sources. In this day and age, I think that, as a matter of principle, Christians should emphasize Christ’s Incarnation - the fact that He was fully God and fully man - from the moment of His conception.
I was also thinking, at the time of my original post, of the fact that posts on this forum sometimes indicate some confusion about Christ’s fully human and divine Personhood.
First, notice that these lines speak of a Redeemer. Nowhere does it say that sin was necessary for the Incarnation, or that Adam’s fall occasioned the eternal predestination of Christ and his Incarnation. Simply put, if Adam had not sinned Christ would not have had to come as Redeemer and so the sin of Adam can be said to be necessary if Christ is to come as our Redeemer. ‘No sin, no Redeemer’; but it does not follow ‘no sin, no Incarnation.’
Another point to reflect upon is this, is the Roman Catholic liturgy inviting us to rejoice in Adam’s sin? “O happy fault”!?! Not hardly. This is Ambrose's poetic hymn praising God for the victory of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. He invites the earth to “rejoice”—obviously a poetic expression. He then says that this night was chosen by God “to see” the Risen Lord—poetry, since the night has no eyes to “see.” The Exultet is a poetic Easter proclamation of joy and victory which Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus were both well aware of.was . Besides, to be happy and rejoice at another’s fall would be a sin against charity.
I don't think Roman Catholics are exulting in Adam’s sin and disobedience in the Exultet. But I'm sure that they are rejoicing with all Christians in the triumph of God over sin, Satan and eternal death through the Paschal mystery.
“O happy fault,” not because it caused the Incarnation, but because God in His mercy willed to remedy our woe in such a perfect way.
If you have a few minutes, you might find this interesting--it tackles the whole thing head on. Exultet
PRAISED BE JESUS CHRIST!
>> I assume that references to Christmas as the celebration of the Incarnation reflect the inadequate knowledge of human biology of some our traditional sources. <<
I doubt that. Looking at his language, Luke certainly knew quite well Christ was present at conception.
Excellent comments, by the way. Just a clarification: Christ is one Divine Person (the Word), but with two natures: human and divine. That’s the Incarnation, and I agree that we do well to emphasize this (not that we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas to the full).
God bless!
The Reading of the Apostle (Epistles) is from the lectionary by a lay person. In those churches where there are pews, the congregation sits during the readings of Pauline letters. I want to emphasize that the Apostle is a separate book and is never carried to the altar, and neither is the Old Testament.
Everyone stands when the priest/deacon sings/reads the Gospels. This is in keeping with the Judaic roots of liturgical practice of standing only when the Torah is read.
The Old Testament readings, including and in fact predominantly, the Psalms, is done during the evening services (vespers). The only time when the OT is read (from the beginning until the end) is during the forty days of Great and Holy Lent.
Index bump
Yes, that is what I was after with "fully human and divine Personhood," only much better. It's over 100 here, so I'm a little garbled!
In some countries, mainly in South and Central America, the Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated in recognition of all unborn human beings. Iirc, it's even written into law in a few nations, not just a Church-led celebration. I really think that Christians here should emphasize this as well, especially since so much nonsense has accreted onto the celebration of Christmas. Something to propose to my family and the Knights of Columbus at my parish!
Good point. However, other sources are not always so perceptive.
I don't have a Missal handy, so I can't give an exhaustive list, but in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, there are (I think) 2 or 3 Sundays/Holy Days of Obligation where the "Epistle" was actually a reading from the Old Testament instead of from a NT book. In addition, Ferial Days contain several extra readings from the Prophets in addition to a NT Epistle reading.
I would think (though I'm not sure) that days celebrating Old Testament figures might have "Epistle" readings from the OT as well.
Christ didn't teach that and Paul doesn't give any OT reference to back up his claim.
Christ says in no uncertain terms that he was "sent except [or only] for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 15:24), and he also explains what that means: no Gentiles and not even Samaritans (cf Mat 10:5-6). NT makes it equally clear that the witness to the Gentiles was not planned but a result of Israel's rejection of Christ (cf Act 13:46)— basically a "do or die" step.
The Old Testament surely doesn't seem to suggest that God predisgtined Israelites to fail, or that he wanted to be the God of the Gentiles. To the contrary. God of the OT is constantly sending his prophets to get Israel to come back to him. He makes no effort to convert the Gentiles, not even Ishmaelites (Arabas).
Let's face it, Paul had to do what he did because the Church was expelled from Israel, and, depsite his miracles, the Jews overall did not believe in Christ, nor for that matter that he even existed.
The Jewish rabbi by the name of Trypho is quoted as saying by Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) [emphases added] "You follow an empty rumor and make a Christ [Savior] for yourselves ... If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely unknown."–Justin Martyr the Phliosopher, Dialogue with Trypho
So, it's pretty obvious why Paul had to take up his swork to the Gentiles, and it wasn't any npredestination but Israel's rejection of Christ. The ministry to the Gentiles is simply not in the OT or in the Gospels. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the realities that ensued.
What of the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-19)? "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
And Acts 1:8? "But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."
The ministry to the Gentiles is simply not in the OT or in the Gospels.
Also, what of Malachi 1:11, where the "clean oblation" is regarded to be the Eucharistic sacrifice? "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."
The real problem, if not outright tragedy, is that most Catholics don't even remember what the Catholic Church was like from her inception in the 1st century until 1964, that is when your church leaders changed everything into something hitherto unknown, semi-Protestant and even outright unrecognizable.
Why, many John-Paul II generation Catholics probably think, the new Pope is trying to "change" the Church unaware that it was changed primarily under JPII, and the current Pope was one of the major architects of those changes. I suppose, he is doing his best to undo what the Church should have never done, fully realizing the gravity of a mistake which he authored along with others.
Old Testament Psalm 21 (22), the one Christ quotes on the Cross says, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
For the kingdom is the LORD’s: and he is the governor among the nations.”
And what of Isaiah 11:10? “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”
There are many others, but these come to mind at the moment.
GLORY TO CHRIST! AMEN!
The Great Commission (which conflicts with Mark's account),if it was part of the original manuscript, says "making disciples" (maqhteusate)of all tribes/or nations (panta ta eqnh.
The word ethnos in Greek can mean any heterogeneous group, a multitude, a gathering of people, a tribe, or even a nation pretty much one and the same thing). It is not specific to a "nation." Of course, we like to translate it as the nation for obvious reasons.
He could have just as well meant (which would be in agreement with his own statement about why he was sent) tribes of Israel.
And Acts 1:8? "But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."
Utmost part of the earth would have surely included the holy Aostolic See of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, etc. where the Church was to be established in its fullness.
Instead, he talks about Judea and Samaria, all converging to Jerusalem. There is a reason for this. If you read about his encounter with a Samaritan woman who gave him water, he also mentionns Jerusalem.
That's because Samaritans are Jews, their names are Jewish, their scripture is Torah, and in fact they practice OT Judaism to this day, along with animal sacrifices. But they believe that the Temple is not supposed to be in Jerusalem and that makes them "heretics" in the eyes of the mainline Judaism.
So, he was expressing a desire and wish of bringing Samaritans "back" into the fold, that they may accept Jerusalem as the "Mecca." He makes no mention of his churches established in gentile lands, as if they don ;t matter; he only speaks of Judea and Samaria in particular.
The word "earth" means country or state. This is a concept to be found in Slavic and the languages, where the word for country or state is the same as the word for earth. In fact the Russian island in the north is called Novaya Zemlya, meaning New Earth.
In Greek, the word ge (as in geology) means arable land, the ground, territory or a region, not unnecessarily the entire earth, but it can mean that too. So, form the context he was apparently talking about Israel as a whole.
Also, what of Malachi 1:11, where the "clean oblation" is regarded to be the Eucharistic sacrifice?
From the context, it is obvious that he is talking about animal sacrifices. God is "offended" with lame animals; he wats nothing but pure stock. Indignantly he says "would you offer such (imperfrect gifts) to your governor?"
The word goy (goyim for plural) means a confluence of people, a tribe, or a nation such as Israel (one language, one faith); it is also used for the descendants sof Abraham, and even of the Jews. This word is equivalent to the word Gentile and basically means unbelievers. The OT (I believe Gensis) calls certain tribe of Hebrews as "goyim" (Gentiles).
And as for the incense, it is part of the Jewish liturgical service. The OT God is know for liking the "sweet smell"—what anthropomorphism!
The word "nation"means just gathering of the people, a tribe (one language), and not a universal concept.
Just as the word for earth indicates a country (such as Israel), and not the whole globe.
Actually the Hebrew has "mincha," which was a grain sacrifice, and not "zevach," which meant animal sacrifice.
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.