tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post8127998328516221666..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: How Mary Refutes ProtestantismNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-73530445528896523822015-03-03T18:27:38.148-08:002015-03-03T18:27:38.148-08:00"The only exception is Jesus, who did not hav..."The only exception is Jesus, who did not have a 'sin nature' but rather a perfectly upright human nature. But how can this be if Jesus received His humanity from Mary, who Herself was born with a 'sin nature'?" <br /><br />Remember Jesus is God and God cannot be sin. It was true that Jesus received His humanity from Mary, but the difference is that Mary did not have sex with the Holy Spirit, is she? No. It was by the power of God that makes Mary pregnant. On the other hand, Mary's mother and father did have sexual intercourse to conceive her. So Mary have that original sin, but Jesus does not.Munchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864028976247159470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-62431871129002954802014-11-16T06:09:57.865-08:002014-11-16T06:09:57.865-08:00Thought I'd separate these two comments. I do...Thought I'd separate these two comments. I don't see how the incarnation and the being born of Mary's nature are connected. Assume that Jesus had no ties to Mary biologically at all, that she just acted as a source of food and shelter during the pregnancy: a surrogate mother. How does that contradict the incarnation? CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-79315059102942698172014-11-16T06:04:15.682-08:002014-11-16T06:04:15.682-08:00As an aside I had a post a few years back asking t...As an aside I had a post a few years back asking those kinds of questions. Two were:<br /><br />6) A piece of skin falls off his hand and hits the ground. In terms of DNA<br />a) 0 of the chromosomes are Mary's, he is fully human but not biologically descended from her.<br />b) 23 of the chromosomes are Mary's she is fully his mother. The other 23 don't correspond to any existing human.<br />c) All 46 are from Mary. God did not have sex with Mary and thus couldn't provide genetic material, she provided all of it.<br /><br />7) Human DNA has thousands of replications errors. Jesus'<br />a) Is perfect, no bad strings all.<br />b) Has 23 perfect chromosomes and is a perfect copy of Mary's for the other 23 she has no genetic defects and thus he doesn't.<br />c) Has 23 perfect chromosomes and is at best a perfect copy of Mary's for the other 23; she has genetic defects and thus he does too.<br />d) Jesus is fully human and has genetic defects on all 46.<br /><br /><br />http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/10-questions-on-hypostatic-union.htmlCD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-75462583072074496222014-02-02T01:31:38.251-08:002014-02-02T01:31:38.251-08:00The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord ex...The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord explicitly acknowledges the validity of the argument Nick is making.<br /><br />''Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished.''<br />(Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord I.44)<br /><br />So to those who say that Nick's argument is flawed, obviously the Lutherans didn't think so. And for Nick, looks like the Lutherans already beat you to it! :pHymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-79388002524498796642014-01-21T15:18:34.255-08:002014-01-21T15:18:34.255-08:00Anonymous,
For something to "make a case&quo...Anonymous,<br /><br />For something to "make a case" it is necessary for it to actually argue what it is making a case for. You didn't even post an argument, but a definition, and one that doesn't even pertain to the supposed argument at that.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-53947541085274346832014-01-20T17:03:49.325-08:002014-01-20T17:03:49.325-08:00Hymenaeus,
Doesn't need to say the word "...Hymenaeus,<br /> Doesn't need to say the word "necessary". The argument here and in other RC documents make the case that it was necessary otherwise Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-34411481101719645382014-01-20T15:01:14.776-08:002014-01-20T15:01:14.776-08:00Anonymous,
The quote you posted is merely a descr...Anonymous,<br /><br />The quote you posted is merely a description of what the Immaculate Conception is. The Catholic Encyclopedia article never says that the Immaculate Conception was necessary, much less for the reasons usually alleged.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-60000403220342823872014-01-19T08:40:18.438-08:002014-01-19T08:40:18.438-08:00Hymenaeus.
This is from Catholic Encyclopedia on ...Hymenaeus.<br /><br />This is from Catholic Encyclopedia on the Immaculate Conception:<br />"Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul." <br /><br />The whole is about making the case that it was necessary for Mary to be without sin. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-24314769478746054802014-01-19T06:25:46.609-08:002014-01-19T06:25:46.609-08:00Eufrosnia,
I think you are also misunderstanding ...Eufrosnia,<br /><br />I think you are also misunderstanding what Nick was arguing. He was not defending the Immaculate Conception, but the view that the nature of fallen man does not differ in essence with the nature of original man. His trap in the argument was that if Protestants believe that there is an essential difference, they're forced to admit that either Jesus had a sin nature (unacceptable) or that Mary was immaculately conceived (unacceptable), because of the fact that animals do not beget offspring with a different essence. This has nothing to do with supernatural gifts, but rather natural essence and generation. The problem is the premise, that Protestants believe human nature differs essentially after the Fall, does not in fact apply to most Protestants.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-65299019949701162512014-01-19T06:17:00.207-08:002014-01-19T06:17:00.207-08:00Anonymous,
If so much ink has been spent on this,...Anonymous,<br /><br />If so much ink has been spent on this, surely you can produce some Catholic sources which state that the Immaculate Conception was necessary for Christ to be conceived without sin. For now, it seems the only people who say this are Protestants. I have not seen a single Catholic source, much less a magisterial source, assert this.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-60823825660464823752014-01-17T08:39:41.632-08:002014-01-17T08:39:41.632-08:00No doubt the RCC implies Mary had to be sinless. A...No doubt the RCC implies Mary had to be sinless. A lot of ink has been spent defending this.<br /><br />The problem is that the Scripture does not attribute any sinless characteristics to her. No exegesis of Scripture supports this assertion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26380033777857472172014-01-16T21:41:53.453-08:002014-01-16T21:41:53.453-08:00The Immaculate conception has no logical necessity...The Immaculate conception has no logical necessity just as much as Christ's birth from the Blessed Virgin Mary has no necessity. God made a free choice to have things in a way that Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.<br /><br />However, given that God chose to give the flesh for his son from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that he chose the son to be born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then I think it may seem as if the IC is now a necessity. <br /><br />I think the following logic disproves it though. <br /><br />If God can create on immaculately conceived being from a fallen human mother and father, then it is possible for God to create his son immaculately conceived from a fallen mother. Therefore the immaculately conception is not a logical necessity. <br /><br />However, it was an appropriate gift for a son to bestow upon his beloved Mother. <br /><br />So regardless of Nick's assumptions on the Protestant theology, I think the argument is most likely incorrect. It is incorrect because it assumes a logical necessity upon the Immaculate Conception.<br /><br />Michael Taylor's views of the Church "shooting herself on the foot" with the IC dogma is also baseless because nowhere has the Church defined as dogma that the IC is a logical necessity upon God. Eufrosniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111736255529574527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-9687120258393036532014-01-16T08:08:25.681-08:002014-01-16T08:08:25.681-08:00Bernard is not arguing in the manner you are portr...Bernard is not arguing in the manner you are portraying him. First, when he is speaking of concupiscence in relation to conception, he is referring to the concupiscence involved in procreation, which according to Augustine is the cause of the transmission of original sin. Bernard here is only rejecting the idea that Mary's conception was without concupiscence of her parents. The point is that Mary's conception was still subject to the transmission of sin, and thus the idea that Mary was sanctified before or in her conception is absurd. You can see further evidence of this when he denies that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit rather than man. "Conception" is meant in its active sense. In any case, this part does not pertain to your argument, which concerns Christ's conception. Second, when he says that the Feast is contrary to tradition, he is mistaken since the feast is much older than Bernard. This point is also irrelevant.<br /><br />Third, we can proceed to the only part of your post that addresses the subject at hand. To establish what you asserted earlier, you will need to demonstrate that "glorious" is synonymous with "immaculately conceived." One textual note is that Bernard does not actually use the word "glorious" here, but rather "honored," which further cements the fact (as if it were not already obvious from the context) that Bernard is talking about the feasts of the Church rather than immaculate conceptions. Bernard's "ad infinitum" argument is against the notion that Mary's conception (on the part of her parents) had to be holy in order for Mary's birth to be holy. This is about Mary's birth, not Jesus' conception. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know that Bernard believed that Mary was sanctified from sin in her mother's womb before her birth.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-51887868061622551032014-01-16T08:06:33.691-08:002014-01-16T08:06:33.691-08:00I will help you read what Scotus said. Here is the...I will help you read what Scotus said. Here is the relevant section.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br /><b>The very excellence of her Son</b>, for the purpose of not derogating from which some hold the opposite opinion, is what shows this. <b>For [Oxon. ib. n.4] it was fitting for the most perfect Mediator, such as Christ the Lord was, to have had the most perfect act of mediating with respect to some person of whom he was Mediator</b>: but <b>he is not conceived to have existed as the most perfect Mediator of God and of his Mother unless he had preserved her from falling into original guilt</b>; therefore she was preserved from being infected with original guilt. The minor is shown: [Oxon. ib.] first by comparison to God to whom he reconciles: second by comparison to the evil from which he liberates: third by comparison to the person for whom he reconciles. And the first in this way, by supposing that it was not impossible for original guilt to be prevented from being present, since it is not guilt, except contracted from another; and if that was possible, for no one did it become the Mediator to have done it than for his Mother. Therefore the argument is as follows: [Oxon. n.5] a mediator is not conceived to mediate most perfectly, or to placate someone for an offense that had to be contracted, unless he prevents the offense from being present and prevents anyone from being offended by it; for if he placates someone already offended, and sways him to remit guilt, he does not exercise the most perfect act of mediating or placating, as he would have done by preventing the offense; therefore Christ does not most perfectly reconcile or placate the Trinity for the guilt to be contracted by the sons of Adam, if he does not prevent the Trinity from being offended, on account of the inherent guilt, in some one among them. <b>Since therefore Christ was the most perfect Mediator, it is necessary that he have altogether prevented someone from contracting original guilt</b>: but it was not fitting that this be any other besides his most blessed Mother.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />The path of his argument is as follows:<br /><br />(1) He begins by asserting that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not derogate from the excellency of Christ, but increases it.<br /><br />(2) He explains this is because preserving Mary's soul from the stain of original guilt makes him a more perfect Mediator than otherwise.<br /><br />(3) He endeavors to show how this would make Christ a more perfect Mediator.<br /><br />(4) He states his conclusion, that it was necessary for Mary to have been preserved from original sin if Christ were to be the most perfect Mediator.<br /><br />Nothing to do with "Mary had to be immaculately conceived so that Jesus could be."Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-37341768127557448802014-01-16T08:04:45.223-08:002014-01-16T08:04:45.223-08:00Michael,
Nick's argument is a reductio ad abs...Michael,<br /><br />Nick's argument is a reductio ad absurdum or proof by contradiction. He is taking for granted a premise he wishes to disprove (viz., that human "nature" is different pre-Fall and post-Fall), and then reasons from that to a contradiction (that either Jesus was sinful or he is not truly human as we are). To give another example, the textbook mathematical example would be the proof of an infinity of prime numbers by assuming that the set of prime numbers is finite, and then showing that there remains another number that is higher than the highest prime number that is also prime, a contradiction. Therefore, the premise of the argument was mistaken and there are in fact an infinite number of prime numbers. There is no reason to dwell on Nick's argument anymore since I think we are in agreement that his assumption was based on a mistaken interpretation of what Protestants mean by "nature." So regardless of the merits of his argument, it is not relevant to Protestant-Catholic apologetics.<br /><br />Now, this has nothing to do with Nestorianism. Nick is defending the idea that Mary was the mother of a person with a human nature. There would be a problem if Nick said perhaps that Mary was not the mother of the divine Jesus, only the human Jesus, but Nick said nothing of the sort. His assertion is that Mary gave birth to a child of a like nature as the Athanasian Creed says: "Deus ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus; homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus [He is begotten God out of the substance of His Father before all worlds; He is born into the world a man out of the substance of His mother]."<br /><br />The denial of Mary the title Mater Dei would be Nestorian, not least because Nestorius did so. But you are saying that mother is an "ontological rather than functional" title," which is mistaken because the universal meaning of mother in its most primary sense is a woman who gives birth to a child, which is exactly what Theotokos means. There are other parts of motherhood as well which include carrying the child before birth and nurturing him after birth, but Mary filled both of these roles also. Mater Dei is synonymous with Dei Genetrix (the rendering used in the Mass), which is perhaps a more literal rendering of Theotokos. Since you admit the use of Theotokos (contrary to traditional Calvinism) and its meaning (that Mary gave birth to the divine person Jesus Christ), there is no reason to dispute the title Mater Dei. The only exception is if in your homeland, the expression "she's my mother" means primarily "she's the giver of my nature." In that case, perhaps it is safer to avoid the use of the title "Mother of God" locally, but not in the rest of the English speaking world, and I can assure you that no such problem exists at all with the phrase "Mater Dei."Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-71717486975495033872014-01-16T04:16:40.407-08:002014-01-16T04:16:40.407-08:00Hym,
It may be that I'm not understanding Nic...Hym,<br /><br />It may be that I'm not understanding Nick. But I think in fact you're not understanding my point, which have yet to interact with. When Nick says, "you can't give what you don't have," he is stating exactly what you mean by tigers begetting tigers. Ergo, Mary was human and therefore so was Jesus. As you say, all parties agree with this and Nick is simply wrong to read the concept of "corruption" as obliteration, as no one is saying that Jesus can't be human because Mary was a sinner.<br /><br />As for Nestorianism, I think I understand the heresy quite well, thank you very much. But again, I think you failed to see why I mentioned it: For Nick's argument, taken to it's conclusion, is in fact Nesotorian (even if Nestorius himself never pushed this point), insofar as it trades on the assumption that Mary gave Jesus as "nature" or that Jesus "took his humanity from Mary." All kinds of things need to be unpacked here, which I won't go into now. But the point of my objection is that Nick's argument focuses on Mary as the originator of Jesus' nature, whereas orthodox Christology focuses on the function of Mary as the God-bearer.<br /><br />Think about it: What does Theotokos mean? It means that Mary is the one who gave birth to God. This is an affirmation that the person to whom she gave birth was truly God without, pace Nestorius, the implicit denial that he wasn't fully human, (hence Nestorius' preference for Christotokos).<br /><br />Mater Dei language, however, lends itself to a more ontological, rather than functional understanding of the divine maternity. So here one could argue (as Reformed theology traditionally has) that the imprecision of such language can lead to the understanding that Mary is the originator of divinity, which no one actually holds. It's a quibble, but it's one that follows from the imprecision of the language. In other words, Mater Dei does not have the same emphasis as Theotokos, and therein lies the (potential) problem.<br /><br />Moving right along…As for Scotus, please show me exactly where I've misunderstood the words that I quoted to you. The mere claim to have misunderstood them is not proof that I did misunderstand them. By all means, take your time.<br />(I ask, because nothing in your post shows any interaction with the quote itself or even a plausible understanding of what Scotus meant by the word "necessary" with respect to preventing someone from falling into sin and how that relates tot he "fittingness" that someone being Mary.<br /><br />Finally, yes, that is the Bernard quote I have in mind, and no, I'm not wrong about the logic. The reductio is absolutely the same argument I am representing. You, sir, are not dealing with the actual words of the letter. It is absolutely about the transmission of sin and if you doubt me, I'd simply refer you to the letter itself. "Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man."<br /><br />The piece about the parents and grandparent "ad infinitum" does concern the veneration in immediate context. But taking into account the wider context of the letter, that only speaks to the motives of those who wish to promote the underlying doctrine by, and let me quote Bernard here, "introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition."<br /><br />In other words, in order for Jesus' conception to have been "glorious" (Bernard's word, not mine), so too Mary's had to be glorious (read: immaculate). But by a second application of that logic, and a third and so on, so would every ancestor of Mary.<br /><br />So help me understand exactly where I've misunderstood Bernard, whose arguments against the IC are simply devastating to Romanism.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-41358599167853172672014-01-15T15:36:10.060-08:002014-01-15T15:36:10.060-08:00Thank you for providing a source for your statemen...Thank you for providing a source for your statement. However, I must again say I think you have misinterpreted your source. The quotation from Scotus is saying this, that Christ needed to perform the most perfect act of mediation, viz., to preserve entirely from original guilt, with respect to someone for whom he was Mediator. This is where the Immaculate Conception comes into play. Christ can be called the perfect Mediator. Thus the Immaculate Conception adds to Christ's glory rather than derogating from it. Whether or not you agree with his argument, it has nothing to do with your assertion that Scotus taught the Immaculate Conception was necessary for Christ to be without sin. Furthermore, your objections to his argument are irrelevant because they are directed at a mistaken reading that Scotus is trying to show how Christ could best preserve people from sin.<br /><br />As for Bernard, I have found too often that common knowledge really is common ignorance. I dug up the relevant text for you (Letter 174) and Bernard's argument concerning parents, grand parents, great grandparents ad infinitum is a question of honor, not transmission of sin. Do you have any medieval Catholic sources that show an opinion, as you first said, that the Virgin Mary had to be immaculately conceived so that Christ could be? You have not produced anything so far. Would you care to retract your claim?Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-70224773538768696392014-01-15T15:34:34.253-08:002014-01-15T15:34:34.253-08:00Michael,
It still appears that you do not underst...Michael,<br /><br />It still appears that you do not understand what Nick is getting at. It is a fact that a member of a species begets children of his own species and not another. Tigers beget tigers, honey bees beget honey bees, and humans beget humans. If the corruption of original sin were an essential corruption, then fallen man and original man would be a different species. If Mary were stained by sin, then she would not be the same in essence as Jesus according to humanity. It follows then that Mary could not have begotten a sinless Christ with respect to his humanity, barring any preternatural intervention. That is what the post was about, defending the notion that fallen man still has a human nature. It has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception. The idea is not that a parent has to be identical to her child in every respect, but that a human parent by nature only gives birth to human children. The conclusion (by reductio ad absurdum) is that fallen man still has a human nature ("nature" here signifying essence). However, since Protestants do not teach (as far as I know) that fallen man differs in essence from original man, Nick's argument would not apply.<br /><br />Your charge of Nestorianism is, again, bizarre since you would identify as a Calvinist. I'm sure you are aware that Calvinists have been accused of Nestorianism from all sides: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, basically everyone who's not a Calvinist. Now, I will not pursue this any further except one thing. Calvinists have historically denied that Mary is the Mother of God because she was not the mother of his divinity. This is the Nestorian position. Remember that even Nestorius tried to teach that Christ was one person with two natures. It was what else he taught that made it clear that he did not teach this in an orthodox sense, regardless of his intentions. Nevertheless, since this has absolutely nothing to do with the post, I have no desire to pursue that conversation. For now, here is an article on Nestorianism that will perhaps be educational for you.<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htmHymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-15856815640686267832014-01-14T08:14:37.475-08:002014-01-14T08:14:37.475-08:00Hym,
I'm satisfied that we've cleared up ...Hym,<br /><br />I'm satisfied that we've cleared up the most important point--namely that Protestantism doesn't teach the obliteration of human nature, but rather its corruption. <br /><br />As for the particular arguments about the IC and whether anyone in the Roman Catholic tradition has taught the IC was in any sense "necessary," I believe that this is in fact what we have to infer given what scholastics like Bernard said in their rejection of the doctrine. I can dig for you, but I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that Bernard used the reductio against the IC on the grounds that Anne would have had to be immaculately conceived ad infinitum. But such could only be his argument if there were those positing a necessity for the IC in the first place.<br /><br />When I mentioned Scotus as being among those who argued for that necessity, I did not mean to deny his argument from fittingness. In deed, he seems to have combined elements of both. I have in mind this passage:<br /><br />"Since therefore Christ was the most perfect Mediator, it is **necessary** that he have altogether prevented someone from contracting original guilt: but it was not fitting that this be any other besides his most blessed Mother."<br /><br />source:<br /><br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/12/for-blessed-john-dun-scotuss-thoughts-on-the-immaculate-conception.html<br /><br />Please go back and read this in context to see what I'm getting at. It's a rather "subtle" piece of reasoning on the part of the subtle doctor. <br /><br />He is not saying that it was "necessary" in an ontological sense as if the only way Jesus could have inherited a sinless human nature is by preserving Mary from sin. Rather the entire argument depends upon his previous point that the best way to mediate the conflict between the Trinity and sinful man is by preemptively keeping man from committing the crime in the first place. <br /><br />As I read the text, Scotus is saying that it was therefore "necessary" that someone be preserved from original sin, since this would have been the most economical or efficient way of dealing with our sin problem (i.e., by keeping us from it in the first place). He then goes on to say that the most fitting "someone" would be Mary.<br /><br />I would disagree with him on both points. By that logic, it would have been better not to create us in the first place--that way there would be no chance of us sinning at all. (You can't sin if you don't exist.) Second, it would have been far more fitting to simply simply have kept Eve from sinning in the first place--that way there would have been no Fall to deal with at all.<br /><br />But since He did create and there was a Fall, it would seem that the next most logical and fitting place for an immaculate conception would have been Jesus in the womb of Mary.<br /><br />Anyway, interesting rabbit trail, but rabbit trail nonetheless. <br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-86287567830762435462014-01-14T06:20:25.469-08:002014-01-14T06:20:25.469-08:00Hym: I see. It appears you were confused by Nick&...Hym: I see. It appears you were confused by Nick's argument. His argument was not that Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of the sinless Christ.:<br /><br />Notwistanding his claims to the contrary, I think his argument ends up being precisely this. <br /><br />Hym>>He was starting from the assumption that Protestants believe fallen man has a corrupted nature (a "sin nature") as if fallen humans were different in essence from true humanity....<<<br /><br />I have pointed out to Nick a number of times in the past that no Protestant I know of holds this view. Essentially he is taking the idea of the "corruption" of nature and turning it into the obliteration of human nature such that no one is Adam is actually human. <br /><br />Hym>>...to which Adam belonged before the Fall. It follows from that that if Mary were the mother of a child, she would be the mother of a sin-nature child rather than a (sinless) human-nature child because she wouldn't have a true human nature to pass on. <br /><br />Exactly. This almost sounds Nestorian. But I think all parties (except Nick) agree that mothers give birth to persons who have natures, not natures themselves. Mary did give birth to a human nature, but rather a person with a nature. This person (Jesus) did not have any corruption of his nature because he was not under the juridical penalty of Adam's curse. But he allowed himself to experience that curse (death) for those whom he came to save.<br /><br />Hym>>On the other hand, if Jesus were without sin, he wouldn't have become like us, because he wouldn't have a sin nature. Reread the quote you posted with that in mind and I think things will be clearer.<<<br /><br />I want to distinguish here between Rome's position (which is that it was fitting, but not necessary for Mary to be sinless), from Nick's argument which implicitly assumes (contrary to Rome's position) that Mary *had* to be sinless or else she would have given Jesus a sinful nature. As Nick put it: "you can't give what you don't have." The corollary, of course, is that you can only give what you have. If, therefore, Jesus was given a sinless human nature, then Mary must have had a sinless human nature to give.<br /><br />Hym>>The problem, as I pointed out, is the assumption that Protestants believe this. <<<br /><br />Right. But if you've been following Nick for any time, correctly representing Protestantism hasn't been high on his list of priorities.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-85275973656139090262014-01-14T04:30:49.958-08:002014-01-14T04:30:49.958-08:00Michael,
Forgive me if I seem uncharitable, but I...Michael,<br /><br />Forgive me if I seem uncharitable, but I will not take your assertion about Scotus at your word. I have found that Protestants for some reason have an apparently difficult time giving accurate readings of Catholic sources, so I would like a citation (just as I would be hesitant to take a Catholic's assertion about Luther at face value). Furthermore, it is to Scotus himself that the saying, "potuit, decuit, ergo facit" is attributed so I don't see how Scotus would have taught as you say.<br /><br />If not Scotus, I would like to see examples of others (figures of authority) who used this argument to substantiate your assertion that this was a widespread tradition, at least for history's sake. You can hardly say I am being disingenuous when I am only unaware of these sources. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the discussion because you misunderstood what Nick was talking about, and, as you note, the only definitive teachings about the Immaculate Conception are those taught by the Church's infallible magisterium, which includes neither Duns Scotus nor Catholic Nick.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30393522673955919982014-01-14T04:29:00.048-08:002014-01-14T04:29:00.048-08:00Michael,
Regarding original sin, I agree that Pro...Michael,<br /><br />Regarding original sin, I agree that Protestants due not merely teach that original sin is merely something imputed. My point was that Catholics do not believe only in a legalistic doctrine of sin, so the fact that Catholics teach about original sin in something other than a "covenantal" way does not mean that Catholics do not admit any sort of covenantal element. My statement was really intended as a jab at the (deficient) Protestant doctrine of justification. Sorry if I was unclear.<br /><br />For example of an imputational teaching, why not turn to the Summa Theologica? Granted, it is not a magisterial source, but it is certainly representative of mainstream Catholic theology. Thomas may not speak in terms of "covenants" and "federal representatives," but, the essence is there. In order to explain how guilt can be transmitted from parent to child when guilt implies something voluntary, he considers all humanity as one man, and just as the hand is implicated in sin which originates from the soul, the sin of Adam is imputed to every man descended from Adam considered as one man (see the answer to I-II, art. 81, question 1). Furthermore he also describes men bearing reproach as by a family disgrace. Although Thomas does not use the word "covenant" in this article, you can see the essence of the idea in his doctrine of original justice, which is that Adam had the supernatural gift of original righteousness to pass down to his descendants if he had not sinned. Sounds like a covenant to me.<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm<br /><br />I could have offered a more explicit source, but I would like to demonstrate that even if Catholics might focus on certain aspects, that does not mean they deny other ones. To give a remote example, Byzantine theology, following John Chrysostom, primarily identifies original sin with death. That does not mean that they do not believe in other elements, but they emphasize one over others. Anyway, the doctrine of original sin has never been a fundamental dividing issue between Catholics and (Lutheran and Reformed) Protestants. The Council of Trent's condemnations were directed at the disciples of Pelagius, not Luther.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25609979657895916242014-01-14T04:18:35.754-08:002014-01-14T04:18:35.754-08:00Michael,
I see. It appears you were confused by N...Michael,<br /><br />I see. It appears you were confused by Nick's argument. His argument was not that Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of the sinless Christ. He was starting from the assumption that Protestants believe fallen man has a corrupted nature (a "sin nature") as if fallen humans were different in essence from true humanity, to which Adam belonged before the Fall. It follows from that that if Mary were the mother of a child, she would be the mother of a sin-nature child rather than a (sinless) human-nature child because she wouldn't have a true human nature to pass on. On the other hand, if Jesus were without sin, he wouldn't have become like us, because he wouldn't have a sin nature. Reread the quote you posted with that in mind and I think things will be clearer.<br /><br />The problem, as I pointed out, is the assumption that Protestants believe this. I brought up the Formula of Concord which explicitly rejects the "Manichaean" belief that "sin nature" differs in essence from human nature, affirming instead that the sin nature is merely an accidental corruption of human nature. I don't know how extremely all Protestants take the doctrine of original sin, but I have not yet met any who would explicitly affirm that humans are no longer essentially human. If there are any, I think Nick's argument would hold ground against them.Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-90332703467977963852014-01-12T12:15:34.444-08:002014-01-12T12:15:34.444-08:00Hym,
You said: >>Catholicism does teach a ...Hym,<br /><br />You said: >>Catholicism does teach a "covenantal dimension" of original sin.<<<br /><br />Not in the sense I'm using. Rome uses entirely different categories for its understanding of Original Sin, especially with respect to how it is transmitted. <br /><br />You said>>, Catholics do not teach that the inheritance of original sin is merely the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants.<<<br /><br />The key word here is "merely." I would argue that no one teaches that it is "merely" imputation. But the real question is if Roman Catholicism teaches imputation **at all.** If so, kindly point me to the reference so I can read up on Rome's understanding of "imputation" and how that fits into Rome's system.<br /><br />Hym said>>Your mischaracterization of the Immaculate Conception is a bizarre coming from you since you should know better. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary had to be conceived without original sin so that Christ could be conceived without original sin.<<<br /><br />But Nick has said this. I'm responding to his argument. I have these words uppermost in mind:<br /><br />Nick>> So how can She give Him an upright human nature if She didn't have this already? Really, what we have here is two human natures, a corrupt human nature and an upright human nature. So the Protestant has to decide between two devastating options: Either Jesus took on Mary's 'sin nature' in order to become Incarnate, or Jesus did not take Mary's 'sin nature' and thus Jesus couldn't have truly shared in our humanity, meaning the Incarnation never happened. <<<br /><br />The very strong and obvious implication is that if Mary was sinful, then Christ would have inherited a sinful human nature.<br /><br />Moreover, it is disingenuous on you part in the extreme to assert that this argument has *not* been part of the catholic tradition. For many, many scholastic theologians (such as Scotus) argued along these same lines for why the immaculate conception was needed, whereas others rejected this line of thinking (such as Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas).<br /><br />Perhaps you mean that no *official* Roman teaches uses this argument. But that can be said of almost everything Rome teaches. After all, it is the substance of the dogma that is *official* teaching and *not* necessarily the arguments that have historically been used to justify that teaching. But here I'm not interacting with official statements about the IC; rather I'm responding to Nick's piece, which is in fact quite consistent with what one can find in the Roman Catholic tradition.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-53782798674989704962014-01-11T02:26:16.305-08:002014-01-11T02:26:16.305-08:00Michael,
Catholicism does teach a "covenanta...Michael,<br /><br />Catholicism does teach a "covenantal dimension" of original sin. Difference is, parallel to the differing doctrines of justification, Catholics do not teach that the inheritance of original sin is <i>merely</i> the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants.<br /><br />Your mischaracterization of the Immaculate Conception is a bizarre coming from you since you should know better. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary had to be conceived without original sin so that Christ could be conceived without original sin. This was clarified in this very thread. Moreover, Catholic teaching is that original sin is inherited through the father, so Mary's sinfulness is irrelevant to transmission of sin. After all, if Rome holds to a "seminal theory" of transmission, Mary is not the source of transmission since she does not have "seed" (semen).Hymenaeusnoreply@blogger.com