Dear Ignatius,

I think you jumped to a conclusion too quickly, my friend.

But that's O.K. A sort of "privilege of youth" .

(I'm really trying to see where your boiling point is. I've already discovered Brendan's.)

Hey, you forgot to wish Brendan a happy Nameday on St Brendan's Day!

Alex

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

Perhaps this wonderful exchange on Mary, human nature, original sin, etc. should be moved to its own topic so that others don't miss out?

- Henri

>(I'm really trying to see where your boiling point is. I've already discovered Brendan's.)<

It's basically that Brendan seems to be saying that there was a human being that existed before the Incarnation, or at least a human nature. But he's denied that it was a human nature. He also has stated that there was a time when this human being (or human nature or whatever) existed BEFORE the Incarnation. I just don't see how this is possible.

The secondary issue pertains to the human being that was supposedly hanging around waiting for the Incarnation. What happened to him? (Especially since Christ is a DIVINE person.)

Maybe this isn't a big deal, but I can't see how it's not. Looks like it's back to the old Catechism for me (I'll never get my doctorate at this rate )

Ignatius --

"Well, today at 1:23 PM you stated: “Not a human nature, but a human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature. The flesh that the Word partook of when He was incarnated in the womb of the Theotokos existed before the Incarnation, right?”"

The "human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature" is the Theotokos. The Logos took His human nature from her, from her flesh. You misread that to interpolate someone other than the Theotokos, which was not my intention, and I honestly don't think it could reasonably be read that way, based on the previous posts in the thread, where I've been beating to death the idea that Christ took His human nature from Mary the Theotokos.

This morning at 10:33 AM you said: “At the point of conception in the womb of the Theotokos, that flesh was perfected by the act of its hypostatic union with the pre-existent Word and Son of God.”

And again, you said: “He is perfect man because human nature became perfect when it was en-hypostasized into the person of the divine Logos.”

"These last two quotes at least imply that there was a time when Christ’s human nature wasn’t united to His Divine Nature."

No, that's too temporal. Let me say it again. Christ's humanity comes from the Theotokos. The flesh partaken by the Logos is divinized through hypostatic union with the divinity. That's all I've been saying, and saying, and saying. The rest of what we've been debating is a grand metaphysical tangent about the distinctions between "being", "nature", "person", which IMO add little to the Mystery of the Incarnation.

"This isn’t controversial as long as “human being” is understood in some way other than human person (which I have never seen)."

Well, I'm saying you're getting too metaphysicsal, too tied up in definitions. We're using words to describe a mystery, we're not able to explain the mystery by reference to philosophical categories. The fact remains that, however you wish to understand it, the Logos partook of human nature and flesh from the Theotokos Mary. How that happened is a mystery -- and, with all due repsect, I think inquiring about whether it was her person, or her nature and how could it be a nature without her person, etc., are prying into what is, in essence, an ineffable mystery.

"Really Brendan, I never denied that Christ’s human nature (there’s that pesky term again) was taken from Our Lady in as much as was possible."

Okay fine. Let's end the discussion then.

All I ever said here was that Logos partook of St. Mary's flesh, her human nature, enhypostasizing it, thereby redeeming it, and perfecting it through the hyspostatic union with His pre-eternal divinity. The rest of this discussion has largely been quibbling about the meaning and proper use of terms -- "ontological", "nature" vs. "person", "human being" and "human nature etc., whether the human nature assumed by Christ was fallen or unfallen, etc. We got off on this tangent because of our discussion of the Immaculate Conception, and the implications of that for Original Sin.

I take it that we agree that the Logos partook of St Mary's flesh and of her human nature (although you would quibble about whether that human nature came *only* from the Theotokos, and whether it was a fallen or unfallen nature (or both)).

Brendan

Ignatius --

"It's basically that Brendan seems to be saying that there was a human being that existed before the Incarnation, or at least a human nature."

It is St. Mary the Theotokos - a human being with a human nature. :-) You've hung your entire critique on a misinterpretation of one phrase that I wrote.

"But he's denied that it was a human nature."

What I denied was that this was an amorphous human nature not united to a person (that's why my response was "it's a human being" -- that referred TO THE THEOTOKOS!) -- it is St. Mary's human nature, united to her person, of which the Logos partook in the Incarnation.

"He also has stated that there was a time when this human being (or human nature or whatever) existed BEFORE the Incarnation. I just don't see how this is possible."

The Theotokos had flesh and human nature before the Incarnation. The Word partook of her pre-existing flesh, of her nature, to become Incarnate.

"The secondary issue pertains to the human being that was supposedly hanging around waiting for the Incarnation. What happened to him? (Especially since Christ is a DIVINE person.)"

There isn't any -- he's a figment of your imagination because you misread what I wrote !?! See my clarification above. There is one critical phrase that you took to refer to another person, when it was intended to refer to St. Mary, who was human being with a human nature who existed prior to the Incarnation, of of whose flesh and human nature the Logos partook in the Incarnation.

And now it's time to take the evening off! Whew!

Brendan

[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 05-16-2001).]

>>"It's basically that Brendan seems to be saying that there was a human being that existed before the Incarnation, or at least a human nature."<<

>It is St. Mary the Theotokos - a human being with a human nature. :-) You've hung your entire critique on a misinterpretation of one phrase that I wrote.<

Brendan, I think you are right.

Seriously, I was under the impression that you were saying either 1) there was some impersonal human nature floating around that Christ took on, or 2) that there was an actual person that was assumed by the Logos when he was Incarnated. Yikes, my apologies for even ascribing such a position to you.

The Catholic Church has always held that Christ “became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary (which is the actual translation of the Creed into English). I must have been suffering a major brain malfunction to have so misread your posts.

Pax

Ignatius --

No problem.

My terminology was sufficiently imprecise as to generate confusion. Two lessons from that, I guess: (1) in the kinds of areas we were discussing, precision is at a premium, and (2) this medium, as a means of communication, seriously has its limits, and can lead to misunderstanding more easily than perhaps any other medium.

Brendan

>>>My terminology was sufficiently imprecise as to generate confusion. Two lessons from that, I guess: (1) in the kinds of areas we were
discussing, precision is at a premium, and (2) this medium, as a means of communication, seriously has its limits, and can lead to
misunderstanding more easily than perhaps any other medium.<<<

Perhaps through this small incident we see recreated in minature the kinds of terminological misunderstandings that led to the tragic divisions of the Church after the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. A warning to us all that theology is not physics, and that it is not merely the medium of the internet, but all forms of human communication and cognition, which fall short of the mark in their comprehension of the mystery of the Incarnation.

"Perhaps through this small incident we see recreated in minature the kinds of terminological misunderstandings that led to the tragic divisions of the Church after the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. A warning to us all that theology is not physics, and that it is not merely the medium of the internet, but all forms of human communication and cognition, which fall short of the mark in their comprehension of the mystery of the Incarnation."

Perhaps, but we must nevertheless take care less this be used as a license for relativism.

Brendan

I whole heartedly agre with Brendan about this.

We should be very aware of diferences in terminology. However, we shouldn't be TOO hasty to say that we've all agreed forever and it was all a matter of semantics.