Posted on 05/14/2003 7:00:12 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Recently I heard about an organization that was founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe called the Knights of the Immaculata (Militia Immaculata). The purpose of the Knights is to do all one can for the conversion of sinners, heretics, schismatics, and so on, above all the Masons, and for the sanctifcation of all persons under the sponsorship of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Their website is http://www.consecration.com.
I found an article on their site at the link at the top of the page that was written by St. Maximilian himself. It is an explanation of the prayer of (Marian) total consecration that Kolbe wrote. This is the prayer:
Immaculata, Queen of heaven and earth, refuge of sinners and our most loving Mother, God has willed to entrust the entire order of mercy to you. I, N..., a repentant sinner, cast myself at your feet humbly imploring you to take me with all that I am and have, wholly to yourself as your possession and property. Please make of me, of all my powers of soul and body, of my whole life, death and eternity, whatever most pleases you.
If it pleases you, use all that I am and have without reserve, wholly to accomplish what was said of you: "She will crush your head," and, "You alone have destroyed all heresies in the world." Let me be a fit instrument in your immaculate and merciful hands for introducing and increasing your glory to the maximum in all the many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus help extend as far as possible the blessed kingdom of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus. For wherever you enter you obtain the grace of conversion and growth in holiness, since it is through your hands that all graces come to us from the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
V. Allow me to praise you, O sacred Virgin.
R. Give me strength against your enemies.
In his commentary on the prayer, he explains the prayer by dividing by key parts and explaining each part. In the part where he explains "...our most loving Mother...," Kolbe writes the following:
The Immaculata is the mother of our entire supernatural life because she is the Mediatrix of the grace of God, hence our mother in the sphere of grace, in the supernatural sphere. She is a most loving mother, because you do not have any mother so affectionate, so loving, so godlike, so Immaculate, so wholly divine.
Is this what I think it is, a take on Genesis 3:15?
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Emphasis mine.
;-)
I read it as an extension of Theotokos ("God bearer," "Mother of God"; from the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.). Jesus is "our entire supernatural life." Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the mother of "our entire supernatural life."***The Immaculata is the mother of our entire supernatural life because she is the Mediatrix of the grace of God***This doesn't bother you too? It ascribes the role of the Holy Spirit to Mary. Might as well make her divine.
From the American Heritage Dictionary entry for divine:[The Immaculata] is a most loving mother, because you do not have any mother so affectionate, so loving, so godlike, so Immaculate, so wholly divine.[A]t first glance, it seems wrong to call her "so wholly divine."
Adjective: 1a. Having the nature of or being a deity. b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation. c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.Who is more wholly in the service of the Word made Flesh than the mother who gave him his flesh?
[T]he term [Theotokos] while true in one sense lends itself to many wrong conclusions and deductions.So does the phrase, Jesus is a man. Both term and phrase are meditations on the mystery of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a mystery not because we can't discuss aspects of it, but because we can never fully comprehend it. At the end of the day, all our articulations of the Incarnation will be inadequate.
The following is from Coredemptrix On-line Publication web site.
THIS GLORIOUS TITLE of Co-Redemptress, and that of Mediatrix of all graces, which it implies, have been given Mary by the latest popes. On February 2nd, 1904, Pius X wrote in the encyclical Ad diem:
“In virtue of the communion of sorrows and of will which attached her to Christ, Mary wanted to become the worthy Reparatrix of the fallen world, and in consequence the Dispenser of all the graces Jesus acquired for us by His bloody death . . . Because she surpasses all other creatures by her sanctity and by her union with Christ, and because she was called by Christ to participate in the work of our salvation, she merits for us de congruo, as the expression is, what Christ has merited for us de condigno, and she is the first steward in the dispensing of graces.”
Benedict XV wrote similarly, March 22nd, 1918: “When her Son suffered and died, she so to say suffered and died with Him, renouncing for the salvation of men and the appeasement of the justice of God her maternal rights over her Son—and immolating her Son, as much as in her lay, so that we are entitled to say that she, with Christ, has redeemed the human race.”
And Pius XI writes, February 2nd, 1923: “The Virgin of Sorrows participated with Christ in the work of the Redemption.” The actual word Co-Redemptrix appears in two decrees of the Holy Office, dated June 26th, 1913, and January 22nd, 1914.
The consent Our Lady gave to the mystery of the Cross was already contained in the Fiat she had uttered to the angel.
Speaking of this totally free acceptance Leo XIII quotes the great sentence of St. Thomas Aquinas according to which at the instant of the Annunciation, God waited for the Virgin to utter the consent of the human race in its entirety; and he adds that in consequence none of that immense treasure of grace and truth which the Lord has brought us is communicated to us apart from Mary. He calls her our Mediatrix with the Mediator.
As we may see, the mystery of the Redemption stands in the Church like a great tree of doctrine which never ceases to flower.
The above article was taken from the book: "The Mary Book".
"Why It is the Right Time for a Dogma on Mary as Coredemptrix?"
by Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, STD
Q: In a recent interview Father Stefano De Fiores spoke against the opportuneness of a definition about Mary as Coredemptrix, stating that our separated brethren should be consulted about such a definition and implying that some kind of consensus would have to be reached with them before a definition would be possible. What do you think?Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins: My first comment is that genuine Catholic ecumenism should never be seen as a simple matter of consensus or compromise even though that impression often seems to be given today. While we Catholics should have genuine Christian love for our separated brethren and respect for their positions, we must have no less love and respect for “the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles”. Hence I do not believe that we must allow either our separated brethren or political correctness to dictate Catholic doctrine or when it is opportune to proclaim it.
Q: But doesn’t it seem unnecessary and even counter-productive to promote a definition of Mary as Coredemptrix when the question raises objections inside and outside of the Church and when so many other issues seem so much more important?
Msgr. Calkins: If Mary’s coredemptive role raises objections inside the Church, I believe it is because that there has often been an unconscious tendency on the part of Catholics in recent times to accept the fundamental Lutheran dogma of Christus solus without recognizing that Catholic doctrine has always maintained the absolute centrality and primacy of Christ but without denying the necessity of man’s collaborating with him in the work of salvation. Further, Catholic teaching from the time of the post-Apostolic Fathers has clearly upheld that no one has collaborated as fully as Mary, the “New Eve”, in the work of our salvation. This is a “saving truth” that says a great deal about Mary’s role in the economy of salvation and in our lives, about us, about the nature of salvation and the value of salvific suffering. If other questions seem more important than these, I’m afraid it is because we have lost our philosophical and theological bases and become “political” pragmatists.
Q: Father De Fiores says that “the title Coredemptrix has not been used since Pius XII and the Pontiffs do not mention it precisely so as not to cause a misunderstanding with the Protestants”. How do you respond to that?
Msgr. Calkins: The first draft of the document that would eventually become chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the term Coredemptrix as applied to Our Lady, but refrained from using it so as not to cause undue problems with our Protestant brothers and sisters. I believe that we are free to debate the wisdom of such an approach. The fact is that chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium (especially 57-58 and 60-62) gave more attention to Mary’s altogether unique collaboration in the work of our redemption than all of the other ecumenical councils combined, even though the word Coredemptrix was not used!
But a further clarification is also in order: Pope John Paul II has spoken of Our Lady as Coredemptrix or of her coredemptive role at least six times. I have most recently documented these in my article, “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium” in Mark Miravalle (ed.), Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2002) and have analyzed the weightiest of these texts, the Pope’s homily in Guayaquil, Ecuador of 31 January 1985, in my article “Pope John Paul II’s Ordinary Magisterium on Marian Coredemption: Consistent Teaching and More Recent Perspectives” in Mary at the Foot of the Cross – II (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2002). Although there are some mariologists who want to label all of these usages as “marginal therefore devoid of doctrinal weight”, I beg to differ with them and find their judgment strangely out of harmony with the declaration of Lumen Gentium 25 on the Pope’s ordinary magisterium.
Q: Why do you favor a definition of Mary as Coredemptrix?
Msgr. Calkins: I favor such a definition because I believe that this is a “saving truth” which the Church of our time especially needs to hear and assimilate. It is not a “new” truth, but it is one which the Holy Spirit has brought to the fore with ever more precision in the course of the past millennium (cf. the Pope’s general audience addresses of 25 October 1995 and of 9 April 1997). It was obviously a topic of interest at the Second Vatican Council and, as in the case of so many other conciliar themes, we are only now beginning to grasp the richness of what was said, especially with the help of Pope John Paul II’s teaching. Of course the ground needs to be prepared for such a definition and in recent years there have been excellent studies which have been devoted to this topic, especially in English and Italian. Dr. Mark Miravalle has already published four volumes of studies (cf. www.queenship.org) as have the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Frigento along with numerous monographs, while the American Friars of the Immaculate have published two volumes of scholarly studies with a third on the way (cf. http://www.marymediatrix.com). Studies of Mary’s collaboration in the work of redemption have also begun to appear in other places such as in the theological faculty of Lugano, Switzerland.
Q: What do you think would be the benefits of such a definition?Msgr. Calkins: If it is true that God has given Mary a unique role in the work of our redemption, we need to recognize it, to celebrate it and to benefit from it. The first four Marian dogmas (divine maternity, perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption) have to do with her person and have unfolded in a providential way. Now, I believe, is the time to underscore her role as the principal human collaborator in the work of our redemption, her role as the Mediatrix whose unique mediation derives totally from his (cf. Lumen Gentium #60), her role as Advocate (after Christ and the Holy Spirit) who never ceases to intercede for her children until the last of them are led into their heavenly home (cf. Lumen Gentium 62). The more we avert to her role, the more we can be enriched by it. I believe that the benefits with regard to clarification of Catholic doctrine alone would be incalculable.
Curriculum Vitæ of Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins:Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins is a native of Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. and was ordained a priest on 7 May 1970 for the Archdiocese of New Orleans where he served in various parishes as parochial vicar and was involved in other pastoral activities. He has a master\'s degree in theology from the Catholic University of America, a licentiate in sacred theology with specialization in Mariology from the International Marian Research Institute in Dayton and a doctorate which he earned summa cum laude in the same field from the Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure (the Seraphicum) in Rome. His doctoral study, Totus Tuus: John Paul II\'s Program of Marian Consecration and Entrustment (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate Studies and Texts, No. 1), has gone into three printings. His articles on Mariology and spirituality have appeared in both popular and scholarly publications as well as in the acts of congresses and symposia. The list of his publications may be found at http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/calkinsbib.html. He was named a corresponding member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy in 1985 and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy in 1995. He has been an official of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei since 1991 and was named a Chaplain of His Holiness with the title of Monsignor in 1997.
The above text is an interview with Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, Member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, conducted by KATH.NET staff.
Elsewhere St. Maximilian compared Our Lady to a pane of glass and Our Lord to the sun - that while she is a mere creature completely distinct from God (as a pane of glass is distinct from the sun that shines through it) she is so receptive to God's grace that it suffuses her entire being.
This is comparable to the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis or the divinization of every saint.
It is also the message of St. Paul that "It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me."
'tis no more dangerous to the ill-educated, in fact much less so, than proclaiming that salvation is by "faith alone."
SD
Yeah, speculations like "Sola scriptura" or "Trinity" for that matter, huh? Speculation and interpretation of scripture is baaaaad. Let's only go with the plain, literal sense of scripture (with the obvous exception of John 6).
Because as a Catholic, I know what the Church teaches. I live in a part of the country that is overwhelmingly Catholic and I have never, ever met any Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary or thinks/believes she is equal to the Trinity. Far from it.
I remember reading a story in German class in which someone went into a Fleischerei (literally "fleshery") - which I assumed was a house of ill repute - and learned that it was German for a butcher shop.
Why not?
Because:
#1, The word "divine," as shown has more than one meaning. It need not mean a person who is a god, it can indicate one who is in service to a diety. When we say that a piece of cheesecake is "divine" we don't mean it is god, we mean it is good enough, worthy enough to serve to God.
#2, Because that interpretation is outside of all of the teaching of Catholicism. One needs a certain measure of paranoia in order to believe that the rest of Catholic teaching is a mere "cover" for the true teaching that Mary is divine, carefully hidden in this one obscure place. And we would have gotten away with it to, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
SD
Tantumergo - you should be a priest ;-)
Fleischerei (literally "fleshery") - which I assumed was a house of ill reputeI'm still laughing ... Reminds me of a date in college at the Bronx Zoo. In my enthusiasm to see the tigers, I pulled at my girlfriend's elbow and bellowed out, "Let's go the cat house now!"
So at first glance, it seems wrong to call her "so wholly divine." What do you think?
I wouldn't worry too much about it - unless speaking with Protestants :-)
Taking into consideration the time and place that he wrote this, I think the context is orthodox. Just like the term "sanctification" is used, the term "deification" used to be used a lot in terms of our final goal in life. That is, to be made godly. In other words, to have a share in the Divine Life of the Blessed Trinity as sons and daughters in the Son. That's what Grace is - the life of Christ (God) in us!
Think of the Preparation of the Gifts in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the Priest pours a small amount of holy water into the altar wine before the Consecration. What does he say? (Paraphrase) "Christ shared in our humanity so that we can share in his Divinity". Through Grace, our goal in life to to be made gods! Not in the sense of, say, the Mormons, who teach that they can be individual gods of our their own worlds, or in the sense that we will be the One True God, or even the pantheistic concept of us being part of a "universal soul" or some such. But in the sense that in the Beatific Vision, where we will see God "face to face", we will have a full share in the Divinity of Christ.
Mary, who was conceived without Original Sin (whence humanity fell from and lost the Grace of God in our souls), and was "full of Grace" (a singular title pronounced to her as her name by the archangel Gabriel), and who was Assumed into Heaven and made the Queen-Mother of all Creation as the ever virgin mother of Christ, can then be said to be wholly divine in that sense.
Here's the Catholic answer to your question, from Catholic Insight
Mary, Spouse of the Holy Ghost
Former Catholic Eric Svendsen keeps looking for reasons to persist in his rejection of the true Faith. He has before tried to deny Mary the rightful title "Mother of God," but his arguments are fully refuted here and here. Basically, his errors concerning this issue lie in his inability to grasp deductive logic, in his inability to grasp the fallacy of equivocation, and in his heresies concerning Jesus Christ. As is always the case, people who reject Mary's title "Mother of God" do so ultimately because they are wrong about the nature and personhood of Christ. In fact, I think that in almost all cases, opposition to Catholic Marian doctrines is rooted in heretical Christology, for mariological doctrines are mere corollaries of the truths about Christ.
Anyway, Svendsen's latest endeavor is to disprove the Catholic teaching that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. In his article, “What Do You Think About the Christ? Whose Son is He?” he tries to prove that Mary cannot be the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. But as he lost the debate on Mary being the Mother of God, so he is also losing this one, as I will demonstrate using philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, and historical facts.
Svendsen asks:
If Mary is the “Mother of God” because of her “parenting” role in the Incarnation, and if Mary is the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” because of His “parenting” role in the Incarnation, then doesn’t it follow that Jesus must be the Son of the Holy Spirit? Put another way, doesn’t the same reasoning that leads Roman Catholics to conclude that Mary is the “Mother of God” (viz., her biological relationship to Jesus) also lead us to the conclusion that since the Holy Spirit, as the true “Spouse” of Mary, is the biological “father” of Jesus, then He must also be the Father of God? Can Jesus have two heavenly Fathers; God the Father as well as God the Holy Spirit? When Jesus refers to His “heavenly Father” is he really referring to the Holy Spirit, the “true” Spouse of Mary, and hence His “true” Father? Or perhaps Modalism is correct, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are really one person sharing two different modes?
.....Or perhaps Eric Svendsen is simply wrong in his analysis here. Mr. Svendsen seems to have a very hard time grasping the concept of the Most Holy Trinity. Now, certainly, it is the greatest mystery ever, and I don't profess to "know" it in any strict sense of the term. However, there are certain things we know about this great mystery, and that is that the Trinity means One Divine Substance, i.e. One God, in Three Divine Persons.
Now, according to Catholic teaching, which Svendsen does not seem to have bothered to check, the work of the Incarnation in Mary's womb is the work of the entire Trinity: "Jesus Christ [was made] incarnate by the WHOLE TRINITY IN COMMON, conceived of Mary" (Lateran Council IV, Denzinger #429; emphasis added). Also, the Eleventh Council of Toledo decreed: "We must believe that the ENTIRE TRINITY accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable" (Denzinger #284).
We find this confirmed also by Holy Scripture, which likewise tells of the Incarnation as effected by all three persons: the Father in Hebrews 10:5; the Son in Philippians 2:7, and the Holy Ghost in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35.
No doubt, the impregnation of Mary is particularly attributed to the Holy Ghost, as the above two Gospel citations make clear, but it is nevertheless a work of the entire Trinity.
This needs some clarification. Since God is one in substance, whatever one Person does, the other two also do, in virtue of their being the same God. Thus we have the dogmatic teaching of the Church that "All the ad extra Activities of God are common to the Three Persons" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 72). Biblical support for this dogma is found in John 5:19 and John 14:10, for instance. And of course we also find this teaching rooted in the Tradition of the Church; so, for instance, St. Augustine teaches that "As the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are inseparable, so they work inseparably" (De Trinitatae I. 4, 7; qtd. in Ott, p. 72).
Nevertheless, throughout Scripture and Catholic teaching, we find so-called "appropriations." Dr. Ott states: "By appropriation is understood a mode of predication in which the properties and activities of God which are common to the Three Persons, are attributed to an Individual Person. . . ." (p. 72; emphasis added). Thus, for instance, we speak of the creation of the world as particularly associated with the Father, the "Creator," even though, technically speaking, the Son and the Holy Ghost created as well, since God is one (see John 1:3; Psalm 103:30 [104:30]). St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of whether the doctors of the Church have correctly appropriated which divine actions to which divine Persons in his Summa Theologica I, q. 39, a. 8.
The next important consideration is that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God BEFORE ALL AGES already. His Sonship did not come into being with the Incarnation. And there is only ONE Sonship (vs. the heresy of Adoptianism), since there is only one Son, and one divine Person. Christ was eternally begotten of the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds from both Father and Son. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not of the Holy Ghost. So that settles Svendsen's question about whether Christ is the Son of the Father or of the Holy Ghost. Christ cannot be called the Son of the Holy Ghost for the very reason that Christ was begotten from all eternity by the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both. That's why. It has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
But of course Svendsen wants to press us into a dilemma, for he now insists that then Mary cannot be the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost is not the Father of Christ. So how do we answer this?
Well, this is how:
Since the entire Trinity brought about the Incarnation, and since this was possible only since all Three Divine Persons are of One Divine Substance, the Holy Ghost is no less involved in the Incarnation than the other two Persons. Nevertheless, it is fitting that certain actions should be appropriated to one particular Person of the Most Holy Trinity rather than another, as demonstrated above. Thus, Mary is the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, since it is mentioned explicitly that the HOLY GHOST came upon Mary to impregnate her, even though it was, technically, a work of the entire Trinity (cf. with the above Bible citations again).
So, just as it is appropriate to say that the Father is the Creator, even though, technically, the entire Trinity created, it is likewise correct to say Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, even if the Incarnation was accomplished by all Three Divine Persons.
Now, let no one think that the role of the Holy Ghost was similar to--excuse the yucky analogy (which comes from Svendsen himself)--that of a physician implanting a seed in vitro. Svendsen claims such an in vitro procedure does not make the physician the bridegroom of the woman receiving the seed, and hence the Holy Ghost's impregnation of Mary does not make Him the Spouse of Mary either. But there is an essential difference here because, unlike God, the physician does not implant his own seed into the woman, but someone else's. That's the essential difference to the Incarnation, and hence Svendsen's analogy fails.
Finally, let me offer bits and pieces of a theological treatise on Mary's bridal motherhood by Fr. Matthias Scheeben, taken from his excellent work Mariology, Vol. I (St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1945), to reflect on the Incarnation being the work of the entire Trinity, and also to further expose the errors of Eric Svendsen:
The relation of the mother to her divine Son must be traced not alone to the mother's natural activity, but primarily to the activity of her divine Son Himself, who makes and accepts her as His mother, and gives Himself to her as her Son. From this angle the motherhood of Mary is formally founded on the idea of the divine Logos who infuses Himself in the virginal womb of the mother through His hypostatic infusion into the flesh taken from her. Through this, Mary is as much anointed and made the Mother of God as the flesh, taken from her, is made the flesh of God, for the Logos is so taken up in her that she herself is taken up in Him in an analogous way as the flesh taken from her. Consequently the relation of the mother to the divine Son appears as a marriage with His divine person. Here now the Bridegroom gives Himself to the bride as her Son and dwells in her in virtue of this gift. Thus the union possesses the full force and closeness of that relation in which the ordinary mother stands to the person of her child taken up in her bosom. [pp.162-63]
....the mother of the Son of God can also be called in a special manner "bride of the Father." For, as mother she has received the Son of the Father through donation from His side as her Son; she possesses Him conjointly with the Father and is therefore connected with the Father by His Son as being hers also. These expressions indicative of the union of Mary with God are more unusual, and rightly so. Through the very fact that the mother of the Son of God is characterized as connected through marriage with God as Father, the thought arises that, as with a human marriage, here also not only the dynamic influence of the Father on the mother, but also the substantial relation of the mother to the Father, is the foundation of the substantial relation of Mary to the Son and precedes this one. In reality the former is first accomplished by the latter. We could even go so far as to think that the Son of the Father is also first produced with the cooperation of the mother, and that the mother is therefore also associated with the Father in the generatio Verbi. Some modern writers have expressed themselves thus. Precisely to obviate the forming of such erroneous opinions is one of the reasons why the bridal state of the Mother of God is usually referred to the Holy Ghost instead of to the Father. Through the fact that the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Logos, appears as bridegroom, the production of the Logos is formally presented as complete in itself. The relation also of the mother to the Father is presented as effected by the Logos Himself. [pp. 174-75; bold print added]
Oh, Mr. Svendsen. The Trinity and the Incarnation are so much more mysterious than your evangelical heresies allow. You cannot accept the Marian teachings and you cannot cherish their beauty because you are blinded by your heretical views about Christ. But I believe that your true motivation in rejecting the Catholic Faith is not so much the dogmatic theology as it is the moral theology. With your essay defending contraception, you have pretty much told the world why you are no longer Catholic. It is only conjecture, but I believe the root of your rejection of Catholicism lies there. Alas, how many people want God in their lives but not in their bedrooms.
To sum up, Svendsen is wrong because he misses the following essential points:
(1) Christ has been the Son of the Father from all eternity; He didn't become the Son at the Incarnation
(2) The entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation
(3) Through appropriation of God's ad extra actions, we can say that the Mary's Spouse is the Holy Ghost, rather than the Father or the Son
And these considerations resolve Svendsen's query. QED.
a full share in the Divinity of Christ ... "full of Grace"From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #375:
375. "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original 'state of holiness and justice'.[Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.] This GRACE of original holiness was 'to share in. . .divine life'.[Cf. LG 2.]"And Lumen Gentium 2:
2. The eternal Father, by a free and hidden plan of His own wisdom and goodness, created the whole world. His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".(2) All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and pre- destined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren".(3) He planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ. Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant.(1*) In the present era of time the Church was constituted and, by the outpouring of the Spirit, was made manifest. At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and "from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,"(2*) will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church."
I realize the rationale, but in so extrapolating have you distorted the truth and introduced confusion at best. My problem with theotokos is that the term while true in one sense lends itself to many wrong conclusions and deductions.
Ohh, gotta run, but quickly...
There's a history to wrong conclusions and deductions, and then there is the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church into all Truth.
The issue here, historically speaking, is the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human natures in the one Person of the Eternal Son of God. That is, the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity as Jesus Christ. The mystery of the Theotokos, is the mystery of the Incarnation of God.
In order to understand correctly Who and What Jesus is exactly, requires the understanding of Mary as the Theotokos, the "God bearer". If Jesus is truly the Son of God, and if He truly became a Man without changing His Divinity, then Mary is truly the Mother of God! This, of course, assumes you have a hold on the impossible to comprehend mystery of the Blessed Trinity first!
The Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon. The heretics Nestorius, Julian the Apsostate, Apollinaris, etc, etc. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Sixtus III, St. Celestine, Pope Leo the Great. Origen, Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, Ephrem, etc, etc. This battle has been fought and won long ago - despite wrong conclusions and deductions.
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.