Inspired by beer, crab claws, oysters and good company.

Thinking of formal and material causes, of essense and existence and such.

Thinking of the Incarnation.

Imagining any ontological significance of the Incarnation, any changes in esse or essence, in material and immaterial beings and causality and how it would impact humankind. Marveling at this nexus of created and uncreated b/Being.

This enlivens my meditation on what we mean when we sing about the New Creation. Is there a new essence or form that we can participate in or as Phil said: be grafted to?

Assuredly, there is something novel going on in the arena of essence if we are to participate in a glorified body in our new but still human existence after death?

If we know what the Incarnation and Resurrection events mean for us regarding death, then would that give us a clue to what they might mean regarding sin, which we are told is inextricably intertwined with illness and death? the wages of sin being death?

What about original sin and concupiscence? What happened to our loss of original justice, formally, and to our concupiscence, materially, as a result of Jesus' Incarnation? Although we have not cast off these mortal bodies and clothed oursleves in the robes of resplendent glory, how do we experience our concupiscence now? How are our disordered wills reordered now? How do we participate in the glorified body of Christ now, in this life, both formally and materially? How does this tie in to a Christian anthropology and what we know of evolution?

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

quote:

While it is certainly true that Christian theology must today, as has been argued in previous lessons, take full account of the modern scientific and evolutionary view of the world, it is difficult to see how process philosophy can help do this since it solves the problem of evil only by denying God's power to help us overcome evil, reduces the human being to a non-person, and makes only God immortal and happy.

3) Much the same can be said for the thought of Teilhard de Chardin who tried to incorporate evolution into theology, but only on the basis of a mistaken view of what science says about evolution, since Teilhard thought there is a "law" of evolution while modern science considers it a product of chance events. He also adopted panpsychism in order to explain how the spiritual emerges from matter without direct creation by God. Both Whitehead and Teilhard tried to explain the moral evil in the world philosophically, while Aquinas shows that it is a mystery that does not contradict the goodness of God, since he made us free to do evil as well as good and in his omnipotence can bring a greater good out of any evil creatures can produce. It is a mystery that cannot be fully solved by reason , but only by revealed doctrine of why God permitted original sin. Thus the problem of evil is only solved only by the revelation God permitted us to sin (felix culpa, the blessed fault) only because he knew that in his omnipotence he could bring a greater good into the universe, namely the Incarnation of his Divine Son, our Savior. Thus Thomist philosophy provides more satisfactory ways of proving by reason that God exists and that this truth is not contradicted by the moral evil in the world than does process philosophy or Teilhard's evolutionism that was based on the "life philosophy" of Henri Bergson.

Monistic and Creational World Views by Fr. Benedict Ashley, OP

Hence, the importance of the Christian Mysteries and Divine Revealtion in addition to natural theology and philosophy.

Truth be known, I've been looking at the slides and listening to the real audio lectures re: The Christian Mysteries, both the stuff Phil did and the work Jim & Tyra Arraj have done (Tyra has a nice slate of quotes from Emile Mersch everyone should check out; great for meditation for us heady types). So I wait with great anticipation for the next installments! The original sin treatment should be a good one. Follow the links from Phil's Blog.

Love,
jb

- originally posted 5/26/03 -

Those are some great links, John. I'll be referencing them as I plod along with the Christian Mysteries project. Look for the answers to all of your questions as I move along. Don't be surprised if new questions are awakened, at which point I will refer you to Arraj.

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

Then with the light of faith we see the universe and the human race fashioned from the very beginning in view of Christ. "Accordingly, when God created, when He caused the universe to be, He was raising up Christ from afar." (2)

But this kind of view of creation immediately leads to difficult questions. In what way can we say that the universe and the human race were created to culminate in Christ? Was not the principle purpose of the Incarnation redemption from sin, as many theologians have held? Or should we say that the Incarnation was willed as God's masterpiece, irregardless of the question of redemption?
FROM: Creation and Original Sin - Arraj on Mersch

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

God's plan of salvation via the Incarnation makes Reality look so very perfect. It is almost as if we cannot conceive there having been a better universe, one without original sin. Still, however felix our culpa , we know that humanity's fall from grace was not preferred by God. This all demonstrates the truth of Romans 8. No matter what we do, God can trump it. He can take any evil and transform the circumstances toward our utmost benefit, salvation and redemption. Providence Rules!

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

. . . Or should we say that the Incarnation was willed as God's masterpiece, irregardless of the question of redemption? . . .

That one!

It's quite possible that just as biogenesis culminated in homogenesis, that the latter was intended for Christogenesis with our without a redemptive aspect.

Slide 8 of the Christian Mysteries project is now finished.
See http://shalomplace.com/inetmin/mysteries/

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

It's quite possible that just as biogenesis culminated in homogenesis, that the latter was intended for Christogenesis with or without a redemptive aspect.

So deChardin could be correct, at least, in part? So, maybe if the other process theologians and philosophers look at this Christian anthropology, then they'd have a more robust and coherent take on both original sin and the Incarnation?

I see the Christian leit motif of kenosis as part of the Ipsum Esse Subsistens shrinkage to make room for created Esse and Essence. That the Incarnation was an integral part of this ongoing Self-Emptying would be a (super)natural kenotic followthrough. The first act of kenosis can be discovered by natural theology. The second can only be known through revealed theology.

Then, original sin being a reality, the Incarnation by its very nature had a complete salvific efficacy that inhered in it.

So, okay. We still have the felix culpa dynamism with every, little or big, sin or mistake vis a vis Romans 8. But what are you saying about the BIG felix culpa then?

O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem! Exultet [Oh happy fault, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!]

quote:

For instance: ... ancient tradition which understands the Fall as a felix culpa, an ultimately happy event, giving rise to more good than would have been possible without it. The doctrine is, I think, obligatory for the Christian, who is committed to holding that God has the universe under benign control. Without it, the creation of man has to be seen as an error on God's part, something that goes horribly wrong. Langland, Milton, and the felix culpa.

And what about this:

quote:

Both Whitehead and Teilhard tried to explain the moral evil in the world philosophically, while Aquinas shows that it is a mystery that does not contradict the goodness of God, since he made us free to do evil as well as good and in his omnipotence can bring a greater good out of any evil creatures can produce. It is a mystery that cannot be fully solved by reason, but only by revealed doctrine of why God permitted original sin. Thus the problem of evil is only solved only by the revelation God permitted us to sin (felix culpa, the blessed fault) only because he knew that in his omnipotence he could bring a greater good into the universe, namely the Incarnation of his Divine Son, our Savior. Thus Thomist philosophy provides more satisfactory ways of proving by reason that God exists and that this truth is not contradicted by the moral evil in the world than does process philosophy or Teilhard's evolutionism that was based on the "life philosophy" of Henri Bergson. !
Monistic and Creational World Views

If most of Christianity views the Incarnation as necessary to overcome the effects of original sin, then that still seems to be a separate issue from whether or not the Incarnation would have happened anyway? A redemptive aspect would inhere in any Incarnation by its very nature even if it was not, in essence, occasioned for the sole purpose of redemption?

Is this what you are saying?

Now, I'll go look at your slide and listen to your audio where the answers may lie!

pax,
jb

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

quote:

One of the great clashes of all time existed in the thirteenth century when two great theologians lived at the same time: St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome (and in Paris for a while), a Dominican; and Duns Scotus, a Franciscan, in Scotland. They didn�t agree on anything. This past Friday�s feast day, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, tripped my memory. St. Thomas Aquinas maintained it was heretical. Duns Scotus preached it from the pulpits of Scotland and Europe. Without getting into the philosophical substrata that caused this difference, we can say in a popular way, that St. Thomas maintained Jesus came because we sinned! Duns Scotus said no, no. Jesus would have come anyway , even if man and woman had not sinned , and that God foreknowing this, gave the privilege of the Immaculate Conception to Mary by an entity called liberative redemption. i.e., God exempted Mary, so to speak, not from being human, but from being influenced by !
the effects of the Original Defect (Sin). For centuries the Church paddled on. And then in the 1850�s Pius IX (Pio Nono) sided with the Scotistic school and declared ex cathedra (from the chair vid. of Peter) this teaching as a solemnly defined one.

Church of the Holy Family - Pastor's Notes (Thomas J. Quinlan or TQ)

What say?

pax,
jb

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

quote:

The Blessed Virgin Appears to Bl. John

During the night of Christmas, 1299 at the Oxford Convent, Bl. John, immersed in his contemplation of the adorable mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, was rapt in ecstasy. The Blessed Mother appeared to him and placed on his arms the Child Jesus who kissed and embraced him fondly. This was perhaps the occasion which inspired Bl. John to write so profoundly and fluently on the absolute primacy of Christ and the reason for the Incarnation. Christ's Incarnation, which is decreed from all eternity even apart from the Redemption, is the supreme created manifestation of God's love.

THE LIFE OF BLESSED JOHN DUNS SCOTUS

pax,
jb

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

quote:

In the patristic writings of the Eastern church are yet more optimistic views, and there were western writers who drew on these in finding a less grim view of the human condition. Duns Scotus, for instance, maintained that even if humanity had never sinned, Christ would still have become incarnate, out of a deep love for humanity and a desire to bind humanity more closely to the godhead. Drawing on the Cappadocian view, William of St. Thierry likewise maintained that the incarnation did not simply imply a forgiveness of sin: God became human precisely so that humanity could become God. (Take these words cautiously: he was reiterating the Orthodox idea of theosis or divinization, the process whereby humanity, through the work of the second and third persons of the Trinity, is infused with the divine spirit and ultimately drawn into the very heart of the life of the divine.)

This is a much more optimistic view of humanity, and is consistent with Julian's view. Yes, humanity is sinful and fallen, but she is also convinced that this affects only the "lower" or animal nature. The higher nature, she maintains, has never desired to sin, implying that it, at least, has preserved a knowledge of and longing for God from the beginning. (A point that has often raised theological eyebrows, as it is easy to interpret this as meaning that there is somehow a sinless person within every sinful one, a belief that would have been regarded as near-heretical at best by the church in her own time.)

This belief was tempered into an understanding that humanity was not created to be on a par with God's perfection (which no lower order of being could have achieved anyway). Christ alone, being God as well as human, could be a perfect human being, and through his humanity, all men and women could be drawn into the life of God's perfection. In other words, it's possible that sin was "necessary" so that humanity could be made perfect through Christ. This view, you will note, takes the emphasis off sin as something that has to be paid for, compensated for, etc., that payment having already been made. The emphasis is on the love of God which so longs and desires for humanity's redemption and restoration.

Indeed, Julian understands that it is God's very longing for us that produces our longing for God, indicating that God is working in us long before we become aware of this fact, and that we are being drawn toward God's love continually.

Julian, however, is all too well aware that this is not the public teaching of the church, and has to square her vision with what is taught by the church. How to do this?

Human sin, Julian maintains strongly, cannot possibly be more powerful than God's redemptive power, and hence we can believe God's assurance that "all shall be well."

Julian of Norwich's Homely Mysticism

Well, certainly, at least the possibility of sin was absolutely necessary vis a vis our radical freedom. That we should sin is necessary? ... that is just a poorly developed and articulated idea by an otherwise brilliant 14th century Englishwoman who was in love with God.

pax,
jb

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

Good quotes, JB. I find myself closer to Dons Scotus on this issue, and to your point: If most of Christianity views the Incarnation as necessary to overcome the effects of original sin, then that still seems to be a separate issue from whether or not the Incarnation would have happened anyway? A redemptive aspect would inhere in any Incarnation by its very nature even if it was not, in essence, occasioned for the sole purpose of redemption?

Yes, and yes!

But how can we know for sure? I don't think we can, except that Christogenesis seems a "next step" in the process of evolution, and unless one adopts an Arian viewpoint on how that could have happened, then I don't see how we could help but believe anything other than that the Incarnation would have eventually happened anyway--though in a very different context if the fall had not happened--unless, of course, there was no Fall, and all this mess we see is simply the imperfections of the human created by God, our ignorance, weakness, animal territoriality, etc. That doesn't make sense to me, however.

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

unless, of course, there was no Fall, and all this mess we see is simply the imperfections of the human created by God, our ignorance, weakness, animal territoriality, etc. That doesn't make sense to me, however.

We just captured our South Louisiana serial killer suspect. It doesn't make sense to any of us that something isn't dreadfully astray either.

- originally posted 5/28/03 -

But how can we know for sure? I don't think we can

Right on. We are in the realm of a mystery of the faith.

I am, nonetheless, awaiting a deep penetration of this mystery by Jim.

- originally posted 6/1/03 -

Hi everyone... interesting discussion going here. Thought I would throw a random thought or two into the pot....(grin).

"Accordingly, when God created, when He caused the universe to be, He was raising up Christ from afar."
The idea of Christ being raised up from afar by God goes a little too far towards the idea of Christ as creature...as a created being. When I read this John 1:1 popped into my head... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." To say that one person of the Trinity raises up another person of the Trinity seems to me a bit pantheistic.

Speaking of original sin... I think it would be helpful to define original sin... is it the disobedience of Adam and Eve depicted in the eating of the apple or is it the turning away from God of Adam and Eve depicting by their hiding in the bushes and attempting to cover their nakedness?

I just finished a book on Celtic Spirituality by J. Phillip Newell... Listening for the Heartbeat of God. Let me throw out a quote that I think may have some relevance to this discussion. It concerns the different ways transformation is seen as being brought about in the spiritualities of St. John and St. Peter.
" John's spirituality is guided above all else by a sense of the welling up of love from life's deepest springs, the place of God's abiding. In the Peter tradition, on the other hand, great confidence is placed in the outward strength and rightness of the law handed down by religious tradition."

I would see John leaning more towards the rejection/distrust of God's love as being the original sin and Peter leaning more towards the act of disobedience. I see Duns Scotus as following the spirituality of St. John and Aquinas as being more from the St. Peter tradition. I think the difficulty is in the necessity to hold both in tension. Would there have been sin without the disobedience? Would there have been sin without the turning away/distrust?

"The doctrine is, I think, obligatory for the Christian, who is committed to holding that God has the universe under benign control. Without it, the creation of man has to be seen as an error on God's part, something that goes horribly wrong."

I have to disagree with this statement too....at least in part. If we say as Christians that God loves us.... how can we say in the same breath that God controls us? Isn't that saying that control... benign control (of course the judgement as to what is benign control and what is not benign is another difficulty)... is an element of love..and that love, rather than being freeing, is yet another form of control? I do believe that God has the power to control us...and yet in his infinite love and wisdom refuses to exercise that power.

"Duns Scotus, for instance, maintained that even if humanity had never sinned, Christ would still have become incarnate, out of a deep love for humanity and a desire to bind humanity more closely to the godhead. Drawing on the Cappadocian view, William of St. Thierry likewise maintained that the incarnation did not simply imply a forgiveness of sin: God became human precisely so that humanity could become God."

If there had been no original sin... would it have been necessary for Jesus to come? Wouldn't God still be walking with us in the garden?

Let me throw something out here for discussion. What if the original sin were not the disobedience itself but the attempted cover up of the disobedience? What if the sin was the refusal/inability of Adam and Eve to trust/believe in God's unconditional love/forgiveness. If this is so then the reason for the incarnation ... for God to walk among us once again in the person of Jesus is I think obvious.... as Duns Scotus points out.... "for God so loved the world."

Peace,
Wanda

- originally posted 6/1/03 -

Wow, Wanda. Those weren't just random thoughts!

quote:

I just finished a book on Celtic Spirituality by J. Phillip Newell... Listening for the Heartbeat of God. Let me throw out a quote that I think may have some relevance to this discussion. It concerns the different ways transformation is seen as being brought about in the spiritualities of St. John and St. Peter.
" John's spirituality is guided above all else by a sense of the welling up of love from life's deepest springs, the place of God's abiding. In the Peter tradition, on the other hand, great confidence is placed in the outward strength and rightness of the law handed down by religious tradition."

I would see John leaning more towards the rejection/distrust of God's love as being the original sin and Peter leaning more towards the act of disobedience. I see Duns Scotus as following the spirituality of St. John and Aquinas as being more from the St. Peter tradition. I think the difficulty is in the necessity to hold both in tension. Would there have been sin without the disobedience? Would there have been sin without the turning away/distrust?

It is absolutely and positively refreshing to see someone nurture a tension rather than seek to prematurely and facilely collapse it,especially when Scripture is being used. That was a very depthful exegesis and a very good rendering of the author's ideas as well as a very on the mark tie in to this thread.

Thanks so much.

pax,
jb

- originally posted 6/1/03 -

Let me throw something out here for discussion. What if the original sin were not the disobedience itself but the attempted cover up of the disobedience? What if the sin was the refusal/inability of Adam and Eve to trust/believe in God's unconditional love/forgiveness. If this is so then the reason for the incarnation ... for God to walk among us once again in the person of Jesus is I think obvious.... as Duns Scotus points out.... "for God so loved the world."

Not to at all trivialize this very evocative question, but it seems as if our refusal to stay naked was symptomatic of whatever it was that ailed us. We might characterize this refusal as a disappointment with our finitude or as a disgruntlement with our not being God.

There are so many situations in our lives where it is not so much either ontic or moral evil that seems to afflict us per se, but rather our human limitations, our finiteness. It is our glory, though, our abounding glory, that the Infinite thus wants relationship with us. It is our incredulity at this fact that causes us so much grief.

As it is said, our God is Bread in search of hunger.

Thanks, again, Wanda.

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

- originally posted 6/1/03 -

James Taylor said that there were two types of people in AA. Those who wanted to be God and those who, once getting the job, were trying desperately to resign the position.

Implicit in letting God be God is accepting our role as beloved . This is the most important insight of John's life as articulated in his Gospel. The Law and the Prophets do seem ordered toward shaping and forming us in that role and our disobedience vis a vis this formation, I believe, results in our inability to attain to an awareness of our belovedness. It is our fear of not being provided for that causes disobedience, our jumping out in front of God, not trusting His agenda. So, perhaps implicit in any disobedience is that distrust. John is describing the existential orientation and Peter is describing the essentialistic nature. There are thus two aspects to a single reality of self-imposed alienation, perhaps?

pax,
jb

[QUOTE]Originally posted by <johnboy>:
[QB]- originally posted 6/2/03 -

Hi again...still pondering all of this...

"There are thus two aspects to a single reality of self-imposed alienation, perhaps?"

I could agree with this... in fact I do on one level... but continuing with the story in Genesis... our alienation wasn't exactly self-imposed... we were thrown out of the garden. Was this because we could not or would not accept our place as the beloved rather than the lover?
What does this say about God... and about our relationship to him?

Since Christ.. I would have to agree that our alienation is self-imposed... but is this more from a lack of trust or an inability to let God be God rather than who we want/need him to be?

So many questions to wrestle with....
Peace,
Wanda

- originally posted 6/2/03 -

but continuing with the story in Genesis... our alienation wasn't exactly self-imposed... we were thrown out of the garden

Good point. After all, this is a thread about original sin!

The two aspects of one reality only works on that other level vis a vis sin.

Whatever is going on, good for us that the remedy for original sin is so easy and straightforward!

- originally posted 6/3/03 -

Since Christ.. I would have to agree that our alienation is self-imposed... but is this more from a lack of trust or an inability to let God be God rather than who we want/need him to be?

Perhaps this isn't either/or?

Or, maybe there is an identity bewteen the two?

Maybe inability and unwillingness should be distinguished?

Maybe some inability is due to where we are developmentally? Other inability may be due to vice/habit?

What about a role for outright rebellion? for the capital sins? for acedia? for concupiscence?

Perhaps not letting God be God is essentially idolatry rooted in a lack of trust, rebellion, etc? One bad root is lack of trust and the bad fruit is idolatry and all other manner of inordinacy. Ordinacy always seems to be the master paradigm, the first principle and foundation. If it is the single bad fruit, then rebellion, lack of trust, capital sins, vices, etc all certainly are bad roots.

pax,
jb

"Perhaps not letting God be God is essentially idolatry rooted in a lack of trust, rebellion, etc?"

Hi again,

Thinking out of the box a bit again here....

I was following the link from this weekend's dailyseed:
Theological Gems from Emile Mersch's "The Theology of the Mystical Body"
http://innerexplorations.com/c...ortext/theolgems.htm
and this popped off the page at me.

218. God simply is. His way is to be without restriction or negation, to be entirely and eminently nothing but Being; to become God cannot in any way involve ceasing to be oneself.

Going back to this from your first post Johnboy:

"This enlivens my meditation on what we mean when we sing about the New Creation. Is there a new essence or form that we can participate in or as Phil said: be grafted to?"

"If we know what the Incarnation and Resurrection events mean for us regarding death, then would that give us a clue to what they might mean regarding sin, which we are told is inextricably intertwined with illness and death? the wages of sin being death?"

How much of who we are is dependent upon what we believe? In otherwords if we view life and creation as good, are we not more likely to treat it as such and react/relate to it positively?
If on the other hand, we view life as trial and endurance we react/relate to it as such bringing forth all of the diseases caused by the stress of living in opposition to life.

How much of our concept of sin is imposed by our concept of perfection as being without fault rather than of being whole/complete...truly ourselves rather than who we would like to/think we should/think others want us to be? And isn't living out of these images rather than our own reality, be a way of killing ourselves... a spiritual death that leads to physical death?

Did God create sin? And can God sin... at least according to our common understanding of what is sinful? If everything comes from God, was created by God ... then both what we define as good and bad must come from God... even original sin. More importantly could/do we allow God this freedom to break our rules? Could we embrace a God who is of a different perfection than we define - a God who is truly Other?

Peace,
Wanda

Wanda, you're really stirring up some good discussion here. Good to have you back!

How much of our concept of sin is imposed by our concept of perfection as being without fault rather than of being whole/complete...truly ourselves rather than who we would like to/think we should/think others want us to be? And isn't living out of these images rather than our own reality, be a way of killing ourselves... a spiritual death that leads to physical death?

There surely is a "falling short of the mark" that comes from what you describe, and much suffering from it as well. I think maybe we could say that this is one of the consequences of original sin--that, lacking a sense of our true identity in God, we seek in in other people, places, things, etc., and so harm ourselves and others in doing so.

Did God create sin? And can God sin... at least according to our common understanding of what is sinful? If everything comes from God, was created by God ... then both what we define as good and bad must come from God... even original sin.

I'd say no to all of this, for sin is not something created. Rather, it's a distortion of something created, or more precisely, the disorder and unlawfulness which ensues from misusing free-will, including, here, the disorder and rebelliousness in the will and intellect itself.

More importantly could/do we allow God this freedom to break our rules? Could we embrace a God who is of a different perfection than we define - a God who is truly Other?

Well, we'd better, for even classical theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas have made it clear that our ideas of God are just as incorrect as they are correct. God is free to break our rules, as Jesus showed the Scribes and Pharisees many times. We do not equate this kind of rule-breaking of God with sin, however, but can understand it to be an example of our limited understanding of how God operates.

Sin has to do with the misuse of free-will and there are consequences for doing so which ripple out through all of history. Original Sin refers to the first misuse of free-will by human beings--a serious matter, in this case, for it was an act of rebellion against something which was understood to be a boundary set by God. We don't know precisely what that was; the story of the fruit is a mythological way of talking about it. But I firmly believe it happened and that the human race has been damaged since.

I agree with Phil's points. I do think that moral theologians could pay more attention to what results from physical evil vs moral evil vs premoral evil vs ontic evil vs our finitude . In that regard, this question is very much on the mark: How much of our concept of sin is imposed by our concept of perfection as being without fault rather than of being whole/complete...

It is good to have a clear understanding of sin and Phil has touched upon these different aspects. However, as Phil has pointed out in his writings and tapes, there is also such a thing known as a mistake , imperfect as we are, incomplete as we are. Too many include mistakes in their concept of sin.

pax,
jb