A Question of Pre-Existence and Apparitions
#11
(04-14-2015, 11:31 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: It's hard to wrap one's head around pre-existence prior to the fiat. That almost suggests that Christ was, in a sense, a manifestation of God, although I know that's not correct. I don't think?

It's hard because the whole notion of the hypostatic union (The Divine Person united to a Human Nature) is a mystery. It's not supposed to be able to be fully explained. Add to that it's only happened once to a single person ... not much room for comparison.

It's probably best not to use the term "a manifestation". The Person existed before an after the fiat. The Human Nature began to exist at the fiat. It was not a human being, but a human nature that was united. The very instant that the body and soul came to be, they were united to the Second Person of the Trinity. That's why we say Our Lord is One Person with two natures -- human and divine. The most intimate union of human and divine that could ever exist.

It's great prolific food for meditation, but also since so wrapped in mystery, ripe for many errors if we are not careful.
Reply
#12
(04-14-2015, 11:46 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's great prolific food for meditation, but also since so wrapped in mystery, ripe for many errors if we are not careful.

Isn't that the truth?

Did Jesus have a soul, like us? I kinda assumed his Godness *was* his soul and always existed, but did he have a distinct, human soul too that began at the fiat, along with his body? I know as fully human, he would have to have something, it just didn't occur to me he'd have a plain, garden-variety soul too.
Reply
#13
(04-14-2015, 11:54 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 11:46 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's great prolific food for meditation, but also since so wrapped in mystery, ripe for many errors if we are not careful.

Isn't that the truth?

Did Jesus have a soul, like us? I kinda assumed his Godness *was* his soul and always existed, but did he have a distinct, human soul too that began at the fiat, along with his body? I know as fully human, he would have to have something, it just didn't occur to me he'd have a plain, garden-variety soul too.

Sounds like the heresy of Apollinarism to me. He must have had everything proper to a man as well as everything proper to God, or else he wouldn't be fully man and fully God, which we must affirm.
Reply
#14
The explanation I've read is that Christ always existed, even before His conception. I'm thinking this is correct and supported by the Nicene Creed, or am I misunderstanding? There is also this idea that some of the OT appearances, such as the 4th person in the fiery furnace, is in fact Jesus.

This is the reason for so much, This si why we are supposed to bow and tehy kneel at the part of the creed which says that he was incarnate and born of the virgin Mary. St Alphonsus told the story that someone didn't kneel and a demon beat him down saying "if only God would have offered him redemption."
It is the reason that the priest mixes water with wine and why the priest puts a particle of the host in the chalice before communion. Can anyone wrap their minds around it? No, They are rather for us to believe, wonder, and to give thanks. . 
Reply
#15
(04-14-2015, 12:45 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 11:54 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 11:46 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's great prolific food for meditation, but also since so wrapped in mystery, ripe for many errors if we are not careful.

Isn't that the truth?

Did Jesus have a soul, like us? I kinda assumed his Godness *was* his soul and always existed, but did he have a distinct, human soul too that began at the fiat, along with his body? I know as fully human, he would have to have something, it just didn't occur to me he'd have a plain, garden-variety soul too.

Sounds like the heresy of Apollinarism to me. He must have had everything proper to a man as well as everything proper to God, or else he wouldn't be fully man and fully God, which we must affirm.

:Hmm: I didn't mean to slide into Apollinarism there....

It's funny how we just make assumptions about things somethings, and then *ahem* someone comes along and gives you a kick in the pants to take a second look at those assumptions.
Reply
#16
(04-14-2015, 11:53 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 12:45 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 11:54 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(04-14-2015, 11:46 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's great prolific food for meditation, but also since so wrapped in mystery, ripe for many errors if we are not careful.

Isn't that the truth?

Did Jesus have a soul, like us? I kinda assumed his Godness *was* his soul and always existed, but did he have a distinct, human soul too that began at the fiat, along with his body? I know as fully human, he would have to have something, it just didn't occur to me he'd have a plain, garden-variety soul too.

Sounds like the heresy of Apollinarism to me. He must have had everything proper to a man as well as everything proper to God, or else he wouldn't be fully man and fully God, which we must affirm.

:Hmm: I didn't mean to slide into Apollinarism there....

It's funny how we just make assumptions about things somethings, and then *ahem* someone comes along and gives you a kick in the pants to take a second look at those assumptions.

Don't worry, heresy is only a sin if you know it's heresy.  :LOL:
Reply
#17
Baltimore Catechism.

On the Trinity:  http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-cat...son03.html

On the Incarnation:  http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-cat...son07.html
Reply
#18
(04-15-2015, 01:09 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Don't worry, heresy is only a sin if you know it's heresy.  :LOL:

Except if you're Orthodox ("sins voluntary and involuntary").
Reply
#19
(04-15-2015, 05:58 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 01:09 PM)Dirigible Wrote: Don't worry, heresy is only a sin if you know it's heresy.  :LOL:

Except if you're Orthodox ("sins voluntary and involuntary").

I must strongly disagree with you Clare.  To be very clear, the "Orthodox" are not exempt from the sin of heresy even if they think its "involuntary."  This is a Catholic forum.

- J-y-e

:grin:
Reply
#20
Chris, what I was reminding DIrigible about is that the Orthodox hold themselves responsible for involuntary sins.  They believe that sins can be involuntary, whereas Catholics do not.  That is because the Orthodox have a concept of sin that is more about "missing the mark" or "getting it wrong."  They themselves say, comparing their theology to Catholic moral theology, that Orthodoxy is not "juridical."  That is, they do not focus on guilt in a legal sense.  Sin is understood more like an illness.

The phrase "voluntary and involuntary" is part of Orthodox liturgy and can be found in their prayer books.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)