| 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
Ping...
I think that one phrase is going to cause more talk than any ideas of predestination!
What I find intriguing is the dirth of Scriptural references; I tallied three. It seems to be more the philosophical musings of the author than an effort to explore God’s Word for doctrine and correction.
Number of Scripture citations is by no means a measure of truth.
However, there are aspects of this essay which I find troubling.
What exactly is meant by "will(ing) the Trinity"? Rather than taking the usual FR tack of seeing something I don't understand and hollering "UnBiBlIcAl!!!!!!! HeReTiC!!!!!!!!!", I'll ask. What does that mean?
Also, what is meant by: "Thirdly that Christ’s absolute predestination could not be "occasioned by sin" or even for the sake of men and angels."? I can understand that the Incarnation and Glorification of Christ have nothing to do with sin, but what does that say of the Sacrifice?
Looks like the author is a Jehovah's Witness.
Who knew?
It's easy to see, however, how the JWs (and others) lacking the sure guidance of the Catholic Church can go off the rails when contemplating the Incarnation.
Yes, but what did he mean when he said "willing the Trinity" right before that?
Personally, I think asking "what do you mean?" is more useful than clucking my tongue, snapping my fingers, and hollering "HeReTiC!!!!!"
YMMV
See post 8.
Caucuses are treated as if they are a meeting behind the closed doors of a church. The assembly will not be disturbed.
If the caucus label is not used - or cannot be used - then the thread is "open" like a town square. Challenges, even ridicule, will occur.
If you wish to add the caucus protection to this article, let me know.
Thank you for your posts.
I think what Danny Garland Jr. is saying is this (at least this is what Bl. John Duns Scotus says):
First, God knows and loves Himself (from all eternity, outside time, before creation).
Second, He wills to create the universe in order to communicate His glory to creatures outside Himself--first in His plan of creation is the Sacred Humanity of Christ.
I would not use the term "after willing the Trinity" (and Scotus doesn't use that terminology). However, if love is of the will, then God loves Himself (wills Himself?)--at best its not the best use of terminology; at worst it could be considered heretical. But leave that aside, the point to be discussed here is this:
Did God will the Incarnation solely as a remedy for man's sin? Or did God will first His most perfect masterpiece in all creation (the Incarnation) and then will everything else for Christ (sin or no sin)? God bless...
Thank you for your post. I don’t think Danny’s intention is to prove from Scripture this point; hence the relatively few quotes from the Bible.
All Christians believe in the primacy of Christ:
“He is the head of his body the Church; he who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the first place” [primacy] (Col. 1:18).
But not all Christians believe in the ABSOLUTE primacy of Christ. In other words, many view the primacy of Christ as a relative primacy—relative to man’s sin. For them the sole or primary reason for the Incarnation is Redemption from sin. If man had not sinned, Christ would not have come. Whereas Scotus and others held that when God willed to create He willed first to predestine the humanity of Christ to glory through the Incarnation and then willed to predestine us in Christ (sin or no sin) so that the primacy of Christ is not relative to (or occasioned by sin).
“Even as he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight in love. He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ as his sons, according to the purpose of his will, unto the praise of the glory of his grace, with which he has favored us in his beloved Son.” (Eph. 1:4-6).
For us to be predestined as God’s children in Christ Jesus God first had to predestine the Sacred Humanity of Christ the Incarnation. God first saw the Word made flesh in His intention, then He willed all things for Christ (I Cor. 3:22-23).
God bless...
I guess that is your own personal interpretation of Garland?
I think he made himself clear. He thinks that God became a trinity and that the trinity has not always existed. He later makes a strange statement about Jesus being a created being. And, of course, in the end he makes reference to how all of this has implications for "The Blessed Virgin." Naturally, no true Catholic article is complete without a deferential reference to the Queen of Heaven, The Mediatrix of all Grace and the Future Co-Redeemer with Christ.
I don't think anyone's disputing that point. The problem here is that, according to the article, your Bl. John Duns Scotus claims (or the author, claiming on his behalf), that the Trinity itself - the divisions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - was the first thing that God created.
Hopefully this is just a case of unintentional wording, but given the double use of the word "will" in the same sentence, I don't think it's unintentional. I think it smacks of an Arian-like heresy on someone's part.
Future? You mean she isn't now? ;-)
“I say that the Incarnation of Christ was not foreseen as something occasioned [by sin], but that it was foreseen by God from all eternity and as a good more immediately proximate to the end... Hence this is the order followed in God’s prevision. First, God understood Himself as the highest good. In the second instant He understood all creatures. In the third He predestined some to glory and grace, and concerning some He had a negative act by not predestining. In the fourth, He foresaw that all these would fall in Adam. In the fifth He preordained and foresaw the remedy—how they would be redeemed through the Passion of His Son, so that, like all the elect, Christ in the flesh was foreseen and predestined to grace and glory before Christ’s Passion was foreseen as a medicine against the fall, just as a physician wills the health of a man before he wills the medicine to cure him.”
Bl. Scotus doesn't say that God "wills the Trinity", but that first He understands Himself (knows and loves Himself).
Danny's wording is not the best here, but even he does not say that God creates the Trinity. That said, my interest is in a discussion of the insight Bl. Scotus on the Incarnation--so if you can overlook that unintentional "Arian-style" wording about the Trinity and see the argument of Scotus on the Incarnation even if Adam had not sinned, then I'd like to hear more.
Perhaps this article is worded better:
God bless...
She's waiting patiently for the official announcement from the Pope. The Title will be given retroactive application to the date of the Crucifixion. That way the Catholics can insist that they did not change her status, they merely confirmed it. :-)
What Fr. Maximilian Mary said that I meant is exactly what I meant to say. I don’t for one minute think that the Trinity is created, nor for that matter does Scotus.
The outline was pulled together from my notes for my Mariology II class last semester. The phrasing for “After willing the Trinity” is not something I came up with, but was what my professor(who also does not believe that the Trinity is created) mentioned was in Scotus’ account. I believe he was thinking of this section from Scotus:
“I say, nevertheless, that the Fall is not the cause of Christ’s predestination. Indeed, even if one angel had not fallen, or one man, Christ would still have been predestined thus—even if others had not been created, but only Christ. This I demonstrate thus: anyone who wills methodically first wills an end, and then more immediately, those things which are more immediate to the end. But God wills most methodically; therefore, He wills thus: first He wills Himself, and everything intrinsic to Himself; more directly, so far as concerns things extrinsic, is the soul of Christ. Therefore, in relation to whatever merit and before whatever dement was foreseen, He foresees that Christ must be united to Him in a substantial union...”
The “willing of himself” is meant I suppose in the way Fr. Maximilian Mary explained. Love is of the will and God loves Himself.
I also agree that this discussion should focus on the Incarnation of Christ and His Absolute Primacy and the implications thereof.
God Bless.
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.