| 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
Good title.
And now, how about the absolute primacy of Christ being thoroughly observed by His Bride?
Apparently I can’t follow your logic, and so we’re both wasting each others’ time.
Have a good evening. God Bless.
The article is merely a jumping off point for a discussion. Nobody can control where it goes from there. And you certainly don't have the authority to control the discussion. This is your first post on this thread.
If you don't like how it has progressed, then make like a tree and leave.
However, you are ignoring that the poster and the article's author have both asked to return to the thread's topic.
You accused a freeper of threadjacking. You asked him to leave. You were out of line. Unless the thread is listed as a "Caucus" thread, the thread is free to go wherever God or the RM allows it to go.
In this particular case there is a side issue which has arisen given the fact that the poster and the author both have a hidden agenda which has been uncovered. They are actively campaigning for Mary to be dogmatically declared "co-Redemtrix" with Christ. The current discussion is a cross-over between the Primacy of Christ and the effort to elevate Mary's role in redemption to a co-equal status with Christ.
So if you don't like it, then you should leave instead of asking those who are participating in the discussion to leave.
If the author and the original poster do not like the way the thread ended up, then they can contact the religion moderator and have the thread removed.
Ping to 122. I’m finished with this thread, as it is no longer edifying to me, and I highly doubt it can be edifying to anyone else.
I’ll have to be quick, but Bl. John Duns Scotus and what is called the Franciscan thesis of the absolute primacy of Christ does not deny that Jesus Christ came to redeem sinners. The position of the absolute primacy of Christ maintains that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of all creation even if Adam had not sinned. Because of sin He came as Redeemer; but that was not the primary, let alone exclusive reason for His coming. Hope that helps.
unspun—I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at? But I’ll take a shot at responding. Jesus Christ must reign in the Church, His Bride, as the Head and should reign in the hearts of all. His is the primacy, and none other.
God bless you all...
Indeed. And may that be in practice, uneclipsed whatsoever, as well as in belief.
Logic:
IF Mary is God’s Mother, THEN Mary must BE God(des). Ergo God is not God.
IF Mary gave her permission to allow Christ to become the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, THEN Mary could have withheld that permission. Ergo Mary is Redeemer, not Christ.
IF one venerates Mary, THEN one worships something other than God. Ergo one is an idol worshipper.
IF the Bible says Black and a person says White, THEN the person is a false teacher. Ergo the RCC is filled with false teachers.
IF one reads the Bible, and one studies extra-biblical teachings, THEN one must “choose this day who you will serve”. Ergo those choosing the Bible have hope in Truth, those choosing something else do not.
Consequently, this is the view I hold. It also has implications for the Blessed Virgin as well
He brings in the blessed virgin, he opened the doorin the discussion, so just let us discuss how she affects the primacy of Christ. Let the author defend his work. I think you also have to have a badge if you are the thread police.
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Mary has zip, nada, to do either with Christ or with us.
Pings to 122 and 125. I’m done discussing this with either of you. Please don’t ping me again concerning this thread.
“see the Crucifixion accounts where Mary is at the foot of the Cross praying for her Son”
There is absolutely no scripture to support your statement that Mary is praying at the foot of the cross. Mary is listed as a spectator to the crucifixion along with many women followers of Jesus.
Luke 2:34-35, “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
There is nothing in that scripture that would lead a teenager, as Mary was, to believe Jesus would be crucified for the sins of the people. Jews were looking for a political messiah, a king, not a suffering savior. Even the disciples who were with Him during His ministry, up to the end did not understand He had to die. What Mary was told by shepherds and angels was that she would bare a King. That’s what she pondered for that’s all that was told to her.
What Gabriel announced to Mary was that she would conceive and bear a Son, the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. He did not ask if she wanted the job, he said she would conceive. It was a fact, determined before the foundation of the world that she would conceive. Her only question was how it was going to be accomplished and when that was explained to her, she was satisfied.
“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.”
The only thing Mary understood from the angel was that she would bear a man child, the Son of God, that was her “fiat”, her decree.
http://www.fisheaters.com/mediatordei.html
Participating in mass is necessary for salvation. Christ did not finish His work on Calvary, humans must do it for Him. The mass is just another work in order to be saved
77. This purchase, however, does not immediately have its full effect; since Christ, after redeeming the world at the lavish cost of His own blood, still must come into complete possession of the souls of men. Wherefore, that the redemption and salvation of each person and of future generations unto the end of time may be effectively accomplished, and be acceptable to God, it is necessary that-men should individually come into vital contact with the sacrifice of the cross, so that the merits, which flow from it, should be imparted to them. In a certain sense it can be said that on Calvary Christ built a font of purification and salvation which He filled with the blood He shed; but if men do not bathe in it and there wash away the stains of their iniquities, they can never be purified and saved.
It would do well for the people on this thread to actually read what is written instead of twisting it to say things that were not said in the first place and then attacking the misrepresentation.
Well I have just read Pius xii on the subject and it's his opinion that you do. Mary has power over Christ and offers up the divine victim. The church participates in the offering.
For a thread on the "primacy" of Christ, there appears to be little support for your view. All I come away with, after reading the topics, and then doing research, is that it appears in Catholic theology that Christ has little power, why He couldn't even save anyone atthe cross apparently, other than those who were physically there at the time. Now, all down thru the ages, one must be at a re-enactment of this event in orderto be saved.
And deny it if you must, but Mary is the one represented with the power. If Christ was who He said He was, and did what He came to do, then His work was accomplished, and He is resurrected to glory. If He did not do what He came to do, then He was an imposter. Which is it?
It's your thread, tell us
If a Priest can duplicate what Christ did on the Cross and offer a non-bloody sacrifice in Christ's place, it removes the preemience of Christ.
Sorry that you have a hard time understanding that.
NOW, THAT SAID: This has nothing to do with the original post. Please quit threadjacking.
So, no one is hijacking the thread.
The Roman Catholic Church places its priests (performing the Mass) and Mary on the same level with Christ, making Christ less then preeminent.
I understand that perfectly fine, and if that were what was happening, I'd have as much trouble with it as you do. Acting "in the person of Christ" is not the same as being able to do what Christ did on the Cross, nor is it offering anything "in Christ's place."
Now, as I've told the others in 122, 125, and 132, please do not ping me concerning this thread again.
Just who and what is this "Sacred Heart"??? Where do you find that in scripture??? Isn't it true that the worship of this "Sacred Heart" came out of fringe cults of Catholic mystics, and was propagated primarily by the Jesuits.
If we take your statement literally, then are we to assume that you believe that this Jesuit Jesus or the "Sacred Heart" of this Jesuit Jesus is predestined, according to you, to the height of Glory???
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.