Venerable Mary of Agreda on Conception and the Soul.
#21
(12-31-2011, 11:33 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:14 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The soul is the form of the body. It's not some "software" that you put into the "hardware" of the body.
The form of the body requires a certain complexity before it can be conjoined with the soul.

But a bunch of matter isn't just going to form into a human body on its own without a soul.
Reply
#22
(12-31-2011, 09:01 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 02:39 AM)Gerard Wrote: How do you have "creation" outside of time?  Creation is a process in time. 

How do you figure this? God can do what and when he likes can he not? The Angels,Christ's Our Lady's personality where all conceived and revealed to said Angelic hordes before matter (and time as we understand it )was formed.

Everything is "now" to God in Eternity. Adam and Eve is "now", 10 years from our "now" is "now" to Him.  What you are referring to is not Our Lady's Immaculate Conception,but rather the image of her in the mind of God from all Eternity. Mary did not pre-exist herself.  I recommend you read William Biersach's "While the Eyes of the Great are Elsewhere" on the chapters on Mary.  He explains what Mother Mary Agreda meant in her Mystical City.

Quote:
Quote:Bishop Sheen referred to the first Immaculate Conception as being only in the mind of God.  She as a person would have to be concieved in time.  Any pre-temporal concept of the BVM is only an expression of God in anticipation of her.  Not her individual consciousness pre-existing her creation. 

Only their Corporeal forms. Agreda discusses in painful detail how the personalities of Christ and Our Lady were conceived and revealed to the Angels before matter was created and how this factored into the Luciferian rebellion.Agreda expressly talks about Our Lady witnessing creation. All a matter of private belief of course but apparently not in contradiction or defiance of Tradition.Heck,the Church still has no hard view on what happens to babies dying prior to baptism.

Jesus as Man-God and Mary are temporal beings, one generated, the other created. Jesus as the second person of the Trinity pre-existed Himself.  Mary on the other hand, did not, but she was known from Eternity in the mind of God. You are confusing His Divine conception of her immaculate quality in Eternity with her Immaculate Conception granted by Him in time. 

Quote:Yes it does.  Original Sin is transmitted in both body and soul.  Our Lady's body was not conceived with original sin.  There is no "Quickening" as Aristotle believed and St. Thomas erroneously bought into.


You seem to have forgotten that Our Lady was never to be subject to sin and God specially worked things out to make this a logical and ontological reality. We have no idea if the notion of quickening is real or not.Apart from special revelation of course and this then falls into the realm of private acceptance. Agreda certainly seems to be in the quickening camp with St Thomas.Quickening or not doesn't preclude the transmission (or lack thereof) of anything.Not really sure what your saying here.[/quote]

We do not talk of two separate privileges, but one singular privilege of Our Lady being preserved from all stain of Original Sin (body and soul) "in the first instance of her conception."



Quote:That is self contradictory.  If Our Lady's body was already existing before an Immaculate Soul was "implanted" in it, then she would've had a fallen nature and been subject to the physical imperfections that we suffer from. 

Er...what?  You just made that up. [/quote]

No. It follows logically from your premise in an of itself. I didn't make anything up.

Quote:It's commonly accepted that Our Lady was always to specially preserved,through divine ordinance, from any and all sin.

In the first instance of her conception. The "seed" provided by Joachim joined with the egg of St. Anna and that new life did not inherit Original Sin, the human nature was not fallen and it was Our Lady, body and soul.

Quote: I don't follow the logic that a period of time passing before infusion opens anyone up to sin.

This is the abortion argument of "yes it's life, but it's not a person."

Quote: Doesn't make any sense Gerrard.Rethink that one if you can.

It does make sense, I suggest you mull it over if you think it doesn't. 


Quote:That's great to know, but I didn't even mention Our Lord's conception. I mentioned Our Lord's birth because so many people mistakenly belief Mary gave birth to Jesus through the painful process we are familiar with.  But because of Her Immaculate Conception, she is physically not under the sentence given to Eve.

Indeed Gerard,no one is arguing that at all so again,not sure why you brought up.Seems to be muddying the waters. [/quote]

1) I didn't mention Our Lord's conception, so I don't know what you mean by "again."  You implied that I mentioned it.  I did not. 

2) I did mention the fact that Our Lady did not suffer any physical pain in the birth of the Lord because both her body and soul were preserved from sin at the same instant. Original Sin is carried in the blood. It is a physical characteristic as well as spiritual. We have fallen bodies that are subject to pain, death and disease, we are spiritually wounded and tend toward sin because our spirit is subject to the fallen body.  If there is a period in which the body exists without the soul prior to conception, there can be no singular privilege preserving Our Lady but instead, there must be two privileges occuring at two different places, one for the soul and one for the body. 

 

Reply
#23
(12-31-2011, 12:01 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:33 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:14 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The soul is the form of the body. It's not some "software" that you put into the "hardware" of the body.
The form of the body requires a certain complexity before it can be conjoined with the soul.

But a bunch of matter isn't just going to form into a human body on its own without a soul.

Nothing happens in creation on its own.God's will sustains and enables everything. You seem to be suggesting that the individual soul plays a part in the creative process.Can you supply evidence of this?
Reply
#24
(12-31-2011, 01:07 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: I don't follow the logic that a period of time passing before infusion opens anyone up to sin.

This is the abortion argument of "yes it's life, but it's not a person."

You seem to be confusing to separate ideas,ie, that of person hood on the one hand and the contraction of sin as a direct result of not yet having a soul? Can a body minus soul even sin? I suspect not.It is the soul that carries the weight of sin and this manifest in the body in it's fallen nature.
Reply
#25
And its this argument I was attempting to make.  If an embryo does not "contain" a soul, then this situation opens up all kinds of arguments for the pro abortionists.  It seems at the moment of conception that the fertilized egg takes on the human character and now has person-hood and deserves protection. 



Quote from Gerard:


I don't follow the logic that a period of time passing before infusion opens anyone up to sin.

This is the abortion argument of "yes it's life, but it's not a person."
Reply
#26
(12-31-2011, 02:54 PM)Cato76 Wrote: And its this argument I was attempting to make.  If an embryo does not "contain" a soul, then this situation opens up all kinds of arguments for the pro abortionists.  It seems at the moment of conception that the fertilized egg takes on the human character and now has person-hood and deserves protection.   



Quote from Gerard:


I don't follow the logic that a period of time passing before infusion opens anyone up to sin.

This is the abortion argument of "yes it's life, but it's not a person."

Again,Gerard's quote is confusing two separate ideas and of course the abortionist argument is still fallacious.Abortion supporters don't generally accept the notion of person-hood at any time frame anyway so this is something of a straw man.Deep theological mysticism or defined dogmatic teaching  is not part of their world view.Nor is philosophy in general other than base materialism.

I am coming at this issue as a Catholic and am interested in folk's opinions from the Catholic Theological aspect. The time of soul infusion ,to me, makes no difference in terms of the sanctity of life and the need for preservation and protection.I am more interested in the hidden divine science that may or may not underpin these private revelations.Given Mary of Agreda's station in life, her incorrupt body and the praise she has received from high ranking Church officials through the centuries, I don't see the sense (or fun) in out right dismissal of her writings.
Reply
#27
(12-31-2011, 02:24 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 12:01 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:33 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:14 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The soul is the form of the body. It's not some "software" that you put into the "hardware" of the body.
The form of the body requires a certain complexity before it can be conjoined with the soul.

But a bunch of matter isn't just going to form into a human body on its own without a soul.

Nothing happens in creation on its own.God's will sustains and enables everything. You seem to be suggesting that the individual soul plays a part in the creative process.Can you supply evidence of this?

Well, that isn't quite what I'm saying. My point was that form is what makes a thing what it is, so I don't think a bunch of matter would develop and function as a human body develops and functions unless the matter had the form of man "in it."
Reply
#28
(12-31-2011, 02:39 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 03:29 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Agreda Claims the Blessed V. was created before the beginning of time and in fact witnessed creation.

How do you have "creation" outside of time?  Creation is a process in time. 

Quote:  Perhaps this is what is meant by her conception?

Bishop Sheen referred to the first Immaculate Conception as being only in the mind of God.  She as a person would have to be concieved in time.  Any pre-temporal concept of the BVM is only an expression of God in anticipation of her.  Not her individual consciousness pre-existing her creation. 

Quote: Do we know who was responsible for the above revelation btw?  And Agreda's account of Marys earthly conception does not contradict Gerard's statement.

Yes it does.  Original Sin is transmitted in both body and soul.  Our Lady's body was not conceived with original sin.  There is no "Quickening" as Aristotle believed and St. Thomas erroneously bought into.     

Quote: Agreda goes into great length and depth regarding the bodily perfection of Our lady as well as her stainless soul.

That is self contradictory.  If Our Lady's body was already existing before an Immaculate Soul was "implanted" in it, then she would've had a fallen nature and been subject to the physical imperfections that we suffer from. 

Quote: Incidentally Gerard ,we are discussing Our Lady's conception,not Our Lords.

That's great to know, but I didn't even mention Our Lord's conception. I mentioned Our Lord's birth because so many people mistakenly belief Mary gave birth to Jesus through the painful process we are familiar with.  But because of Her Immaculate Conception, she is physically not under the sentence given to Eve. 

   
Just want to add:

Gerard, incidentally Agreda took a very Scotistic approach-that is  the Arist./Franciscan metaphysics including the Conception. 
Fr. Peter Felner, the worlds foremost expert on Scotus exclaimed such about Agreda.  I have to go back and see what Scotus says again, i just want to clarify this.
Perhaps even St. Maximilian Kolbe weighed in on this as well about Our Lady being quasi ? (infinite?).
Reply
#29
Crusading Philologist Wrote:Well, that isn't quite what I'm saying. My point was that form is what makes a thing what it is, so I don't think a bunch of matter would develop and function as a human body develops and functions unless the matter had the form of man "in it."
Wait a minute doesnt Genesis say that God formed Adam's body from the slime first and then infused a living soul into it?
Reply
#30
(01-02-2012, 01:26 AM)orangemetal Wrote:
Crusading Philologist Wrote:Well, that isn't quite what I'm saying. My point was that form is what makes a thing what it is, so I don't think a bunch of matter would develop and function as a human body develops and functions unless the matter had the form of man "in it."
Wait a minute doesnt Genesis say that God formed Adam's body from the slime first and then infused a living soul into it?

"And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. "

That reads as simultaneous infusion of life and soul.  The slime doesn't seem to have been "living slime" that had a soul infused into it.  It seems more like a transformation from slime to flesh at the same moment the man's soul was in his body.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)