 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > GOD as a Zygote | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 6:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Hey thanks DLW! Yes, you are right, that IS what I meant about quickening...
RD, you had said: "Divine ensoulment has always been a point of controversy throughout church history...it's only been now, w/ modern technology, that most christians believe ensoulment occurs at conception - with the great medical technology we possess, we are far more clearly able to make the statement." (Posted - 07/28/2003 : 5:37:26 PM)
And RD also said: "Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had differing theories. The point is that it wasn't like everyone 100% believed in divine ensoulment at conception and that DLW is "changing theology".
I'd also note that conception was difficult to pinpoint, as most people did not necessarily notice they were pregnant for several weeks (or months) after it. Quickening was viewed as a point to use in early american history- when of course nowadays we know that far before "Quickening", a human being can be saved outside the womb. " (Posted - 07/28/2003 : 5:52:19 PM)
There is nothing posted to support that medical technology can assess divine ensoulment. Implied in your post is that many of the "most christians" who "believe ensoulment occurs at conception" might. But nothing supports any assertion that medicine deals in that issue, or can.
The fact you mention about viability via medical care sometimes preceeding the point that a fetus might sometimes be noticed is sure interesting. (The ICN my son was in was a real eye opener.) But, significantly, discussion about the human soul is not just a matter of matching up with a stage of development.
The meaning of our humanity, grounded in our calling, and centered on God is the overwelming matter in the issue. Who and what we are is not defined just by our autonomous accomplishments. As I said to Dave, "...the purpose of personal life is worship and community."
In Dave's thread I pointed out that it is not a matter of "when" but of "who" (God, who gives life, and who's act of giving life defines what the meaning of that life is; not changind cultural fads.) and "why" (which is that "Personal" life of worship and communion").
Quickening is great! But we ARE who we are from the moment God makes us!
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 6:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Verbum caro hic factum est
quote: In the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth there is a plaque with this inscription: Verbum caro hic factum est "the Word was made flesh here." It was there, in that particular place, "a city of Galilee" (Lk 1:26), that God became man. But we can be even more specific: it was in the womb of a virgin named Mary (cf. v. 27) that God the Son, without ceasing to be true God, assumed a complete human nature into the unity of his divine person and became true man. Moreover, according to the Church's teaching, we can be precise about the moment of the Incarnation: it took place when the Virgin Mary said to the angel, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" (v. 38). It was exactly then that, by the overshadowing of the Spirit, a body was fashioned from the Virgin's flesh and blood, a rational soul created and infused into the body and, in the same instant, the complete human nature united to the divine Word. There were no successive stages in this taking of manhood; the body did not come into being before the soul, nor the soul before the body, nor were either ever other than his, God the Son's: the flesh was conceived, ensouled, and assumed simultaneously.
The coincidence of the virginal conception and the hypostatic union is a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith. In the words of the "Formula of Union" agreed between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochene bishops in 433 and canonized by the General Council of Chalcedon in 451, "we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God, because God the Word was made flesh and became man and from the very moment of conception united to himself the temple he had taken from her." Origen's theory that the soul of Christ pre-existed the creation of his body was condemned by the provincial Council of Constantinople in 543, as was the opinion that the body was first formed and only later united to the soul and the Word. This judgement was later confirmed by Pope Vigilius (d. 555). In 675 the eleventh provincial Council of Toledo declared that it was in his "wonderful conception" that the Word was made flesh, and five years later the Third General Council of Constantinople officially approved the synodal epistle of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638), which contains this relevant passage:
"He truly became man who is ever acknowledged to be God, and is shown to be in his Mother's womb who is in the bosom of the eternal Father, and the timeless accepts a beginning in time. He did not become these things in unreal appearance (as the Manichees and Valentinians think), but in truth and reality he emptied the whole of himself by the will that is his own and the Father's, and assumed the whole mass [of our nature], flesh consubstantial with us, a rational soul of the same kind as ours, a mind like ours. For man is and is known to be all these things; and he was made man in truth at the very instant of his conception in the all-holy Virgin."
(from: American Bioethics Advisory Commission, Appendix: An Approach to a Key Theological Question http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | Several posts by ReasonableDoubt and DLW mentioned Thomas Aquinas. What they said needs re-evaluating!!!!
http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm
An American Bioethics Advisory Commission report says:
quote: In a remarkable book entitled Redeemer in the Womb, John Saward addresses the issue in a way that is clear and compelling. His concern is theological, specifically about the incarnation of Jesus Christ. However, the implications for the debates over abortion and cloning are clear. He draws on Patristic sources, showing that the questions we face today are not new, and also discusses at length a controversy that has arisen from a misreading of St.Thomas Aquinas.
Here is the later portion of the Appendix portion dealing with thology, as it dwells on Aquinas. (RD seems to have it wrong.)
quote: Christ's Human Beginning and Ours: St. Thomas Aquinas
Where Maximus saw a confirmation, Scholasticism found an exception: unlike other men's, Christ's body was animated by a rational soul at conception. The Schoolmen (following Aristotle) held the view that the rational soul is not infused at the first moment of conception but at a later time, that is, when the embryo has attained a sufficiently advanced state of bodily development.
The philosophers of antiquity were not well up on the biology of modernity, and so they lacked the means (which we now have) of distinguishing an early human embryo from those of other species. To outward inspection, all embryos seemed to be of the same kind. The development, therefore, of a non-specific embryo into a recognizably human one had to be a process of substantial change change of nature or form, change of soul. ("Soul" here means the form of the body, that which makes a body to be the sort of body it is, its life-principle, the source of its characteristic functions.) For Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, human generation is a drama of transformation, of "coming to be" and "passing away." At first, the embryo has a "vegetative" soul: it is capable of nourishment and growth. The vegetative soul "passes away" and is succeeded by a soul that is both vegetative and sensitive: the embryo is capable of sensation as well as nourishment. Finally, the sensitive soul is replaced by one created directly by God, a soul that is at once vegetative, sensitive, and rational: the embryo is alive with the life of man.
St. Thomas stood by this theory, not just because it came to him from Aristotle, but because it corresponded to what was observable in nature, and he was convinced that a sound philosophy must be empirically based. "The judgement that the intellect makes concerning the nature of a thing must conform to what sense perception shows about the thing." Now the ancient world and the Middle Ages knew nothing of ovulation; indeed, the ovum itself was not discovered until 1827. As far as St. Thomas was concerned, conception took place through the activation by semen of a special secretion of blood in the womb. What is more, though he grasped the truth that matter must be suitably and sufficiently organized in order to be animated by a rational soul, his judgement of what constituted organization was determined by the limitations of current observation. For Aristotle (and so for St. Thomas), the soul is "the primary act of a natural organic body" (s“matos physikou organikou), that is to say, a body with organs, parts serving some essential function. Only when the embryonic body was equipped with recognizably human organs and limbs was it deemed to be alive with human life; when completely formed, it was evidently informed by a rational soul. Once there was the body of a man, there was a man, a rational animal.
St. Thomas taught that Christ's body did not develop in the normal manner. Having been created directly by the Holy Spirit from the flesh and blood of the Virgin, without any involvement of male seed, it was fully formed, perfectly organized, from the first moment of conception, and from that first moment was animated by a rational soul. St. Bonaventure held the same opinion: from his conception, Christ's body had "perfection of organization."
There is an obvious difficulty with this opinion. If the incarnate Word is to be called "man" univocally, why should he differ from other men with regard to the animation of his human body? In the terminology of St. Maximus, it would seem to imply a difference in the "definition of nature" rather than the "manner of existence." St. Thomas considers this question in an objection quoting St. Leo the Great. He replies that the difference between Christ and us in this respect is one of timing, not of nature. Our Lord's animation was essentially the same as other men's in the sense that his rational soul, like all others, was infused as soon as the body was formed. What was different was the time of that formation: Christ's body was perfectly formed at an earlier moment than other men's.
Were he alive today, St. Thomas would without doubt hold the doctrine of immediate animation. The fundamental principles of his philosophy of man are independent of his obsolete biology; indeed, when applied to modern knowledge, they provide formidable support for immediate animation. Stripping off the shell of the out-of-date science, we find the permanently valid kernel of his thought on the soul. This is not wishful thinking. It is simply the application of the Thomist axiom stated earlier: philosophy must have an empirical base.
The essential principles of Thomist anthropology are as follows:
A. The soul is not the self. A man is not only a soul but something composed of soul and body. The soul separated from the body is not a man. The soul on its own can no more be called a person than a hand or foot on its own. The person is the possessor of the complete nature of the species.
B. It is natural for the soul to be united to the body. That is why the separation of soul from body at death is "against nature" and why the resurrection of the body is in a certain sense "necessary."
C. The soul is the form of the body. "Form" here means the innermost shaping principle of a thing, making it to be what it is. The soul is not a motor in a machine, making it move. No, it is what makes the body what it is, the body of a rnan. An ensouled body is the body of a living human being.
D. The rational soul, which is not transmitted by the parents, is infused by God as soon as the body is ready to receive it. It must be suitably organized. St. Thomas explains how the human body is suitably disposed by the Divine Artist for those spiritual acts of which only man among bodily creatures is capable. His senses are not just for food and sex but for knowledge, and so he does not sniff around on the ground but stands upright and can lift up his face to contemplate the heavens.
Modern biology has proved that the fundamental "disposition" or "organization" of living matter is genetic (cf. D). We can now do what the ancients could not: we can distinguish the human embryo from embryos of other species. The perceptible form of the zygote, its genetic structure, may therefore be regarded as, so to speak, the outward and visible sign of its metaphysical form, that which makes it to be what it is, a member of the human species (cf. C). "The human zygote as we understand it today with DNA and RNA would in Thomas' understanding eminently satisfy as having the organized matter required for the infusion of a human spiritual soul."
Thus man is a natural and complete whole from his conception (cf. A and B). The embryo is alive with unmistakably human life. For St. Thomas, that is just another way of saying that it is ensouled with a human (rational) soul. "It" is already "he" or "she."
The doctrine of immediate animation makes St. Thomas' Christology shine with even greater power. It resolves tensions and unanswered questions.
1. The Angelic Doctor tells us that, while Our Lord's conception was wholly miraculous in the sense that its active principle was the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit (rather than the natural power of male seed), it was wholly natural when we consider the matter furnished by his Mother. Strictly, on St. Thomas' view, one ought to add that the conception was also, if not miraculous, at least extraordinary in the sense that his body was animated at an earlier moment than any other human body. If, however, Christ is like us even in the moment of his animation, then we can appreciate the sense in which, though in its manner it is miraculous, his conception remains completely natural, the beginning of real and complete human life.
2. If the Son of God's embryonic condition is like that of every other human being, we understand better what St. Thomas has to say about his self-emptying and his assumption of our "natural and blameless disabilities." He emptied himself, not by laying aside his divine greatness, but by taking on our human littleness, and first of all the microscopic infirmity of the embryo. He accepts the limitations of the long, slow womb-way to birth. Apart from the virginal manner of his conception and birth, the Christ Child, unborn as well as newborn, is like every baby.
3. St. Thomas' doctrine of man is undoubtedly christocentric. He does not confuse philosophy with theology, truths of natural philosophy with truths of supernatural revelation, but his faith in God-made-man does give added weight to what his reason tells him of man-made-by-God. As Josef Pieper says:
"Thomas might never have had the courage to defend natural and visible reality, in particular man's corporeality, as an essential part of man and would never have had the courage to draw the ultimate conclusions from this conviction had he not thought in terms of the Incarnation of God. . . . One who believes that the Logos of God has, in Christ, united with the bodily nature of man cannot possibly assume at the same time that the material reality is not good. And how can visible things be evil if the "medicine of salvation" deriving from that prototypal Sacrament be offered to man in the same visible things . . . when the sacraments are performed."
As a general principle, this is certainly true. In the Summa Theologiae, anthropology is presented in a christological (and Trinitarian) frame. Man (at the end of the first part and throughout the second part) is enveloped by the one Lord Jesus Christ: in the mysteries of his divinity (in the first part) and in the mysteries of his humanity (in the third part). St. Thomas looks at the human person in the light of the divine person of the Word-made-flesh. Only with respect to the moment of animation does the principle appear to have been inconsistently applied.
http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 6:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | On a Christian Ethics in Medicine site is found this paragraph:
quote: Let's start with the question: Who is Christ? We should especially consider who He is at His birth and who He is at His death. Christ was born through a virgin conception. Jesus Christ, according to His human nature, was once a zygote. The same considerations that apply to more mature humans applies to zygotes. The Incarnation elevates and dignifies every stage of life, including this stage.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 7:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | Lawyers, Herbert T. Krimmel and Martin J. Foley argue that because Jesus was fully present at conception so must every other person be as well:
Now, given the facts established by Holy Scripture that (a) Christ was fully God and fully man and (b) Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, our argument can be stated succinctly:
1. "Conception" literally means the process which terminates the initial presence in the womb of that which is conceived (i.e., the single cell entity referred to in biological terms as a zygote). Consequently, when one says that Mary conceived by the activity of the Holy Ghost, one must mean that which the Holy Ghost produced in and through conception was the initial presence of the zygote.
2. The zygote the Holy Ghost brought about in Mary’s womb was Jesus Christ; true God and true man, in His human nature like man in all things except for sin.
3. If Jesus (true God and true man) was present in His mother’s womb from the first moment of His conception, then it follows that other men must also be alive and existing as human beings from the first moments of their conceptions; for unless they are the same as Jesus in this respect of their human nature, He would not be like them in every essential human respect except for sin. This is to say, then, that a human being must be fully present as such from the moment of conception.3
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0303W4.htm | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 7:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | http://www.breakpoint.org/BiotechPolicy/ChannelRoot/Features/Articles/Image+Is+Everything.htm
BreakPoint online
Image Is Everything
By Jim Tonkowich A Sample Sermon on Biotechnology
quote: THE BIG IDEA:
S: The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
C: Our creation in the image of God and Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection are the basis for our human dignity.
. . .
quote: 2. Incarnation (Luke 1:26-38)
(Read Lk 1:30-38.) . . . And something happened. What precisely happened on a cellular or genetic level? I haven’t a clue. But I know this: God became a zygote, a one-celled human being. And God grew into a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, and an infant in a stable in Bethlehem.
quote: - Image is everything. Human life has sanctity and dignity because are made in the image of God and because God himself took on that image and bears it still.
- Human life is sanctified and dignified not only by being made in the image of God, but because God himself bears that image.
And that article quotes C. S. Lewis' sermon The Weight of Glory:
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. . . . Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Essays, HarperSanFrancisco: 1976, page 46)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: In Nazareth there is a plaque with this inscription:
Verbum caro hic factum est
"the Word was made flesh here."



| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 8:22 PM (GMT -6) |   |  zygote

Zygote, 1-3hours after fertilization (stage I ookinetes). Zygotes, round or oval shaped, have a more condensed appearance and are somewhat smaller then female gametes. They have a darker red staining, more extended nucleus. Within 10-60 minutes after induction of gametogenesis zygotes can be observed with two nuclei, just before fusion of the male and female nucleus. Between 2 and 3 hour after fertilization DNA synthesis occurs in the nucleus of the zygote, up to the tetraploid value, coinciding with meiosis. In the zygote shown the male and female nuclei have not been fused yet. Giemsa staining. http://www.lumc.nl/1040/research/malaria/cycle25.html
GOD, VOLUNTARILY VULNERABLE. NOT DIMINISHED IN HIS DIVINITY, BUT YET LIMITING HIMSELF TO THE LIMITS OF HIS FALLEN CREATION. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/29/2003 8:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/30/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | Drawn from a post above:
...start with the question: Who is Christ?
We should especially consider who He is at His birth and who He is at His death. Christ was born through a virgin conception.
- - -
Jesus Christ,
according to His human nature,
was once a zygote.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | http://feastofsaints.com/incarnation.htm
A MEDITATION ON THE INCARNATION
given at an ecumenical gathering in January, 2002, St Benedict Church, Baltimore MD

I blithely agreed to speak, trusting that the Lord would give me something to say.
Then the wonder set in.
I wonder what I’m going to say. What is there to say about the Incarnation, about God become man? What can possibly express the mystery of it?
Do I talk about God being debased so that man can be elevated?
Do I talk about God in the flesh, a baby, a zygote, just a bunch of stem cells?
Do I talk about the Incarnation of God within us through the Eucharist?
How about God being in us so that we may live and move and have our being in Him?
What is there to say about a God who loves in such a strange and fascinating way as to become incarnate?
And why talk about it now? Sure, the Incarnation is more evident at Christmastime, but we celebrate the feast in March, when spring is new and our earthly cycle of life is just beginning.
Just postpone the talk.
But then I think it’s supposed to be a meditation. Anything can be a meditation. I can ruminate and pose a few thoughts, read a poem, do a dramatic show, or simply hand out a few papers and sit in silence while everybody meditates on his own.
In the end, I decided to do just a few of these. We’ll start with a poem, then a reading, then the highest joy – a singing meditation, the glory of God come among us through song. Bob and Mary graciously agreed to sing, and if we know the words we can join in, though I heard a rumor that something they sing will be Czech, so…….maybe better just to listen!
Who is there on earth to tell the tale?
Who is there on earth to rip the curtain and say
It is your God!
Flailing in the hay with matted hair
Not good enough for a room
And consigned to a stall
With muck and stench
The only light the angels’ song
And the glisten of a tear from
A young mom marveling at the beauty
Of a long awaited child
And a worried husband
Wondering how to ward off
The insulting and the apathetic
To protect God,
God in a little one
With pudgy hands and human sweat?
Who is there on earth to speak of it?
Amidst the unconcern of a horde
That won’t sacrifice an ion of comfort
To make room for a pregnant girl
In haste to welcome God?
Who is there to declare, "Look, it is your king!"
A few misfits
in from the fields
To see a question raised
By a weird sparkle in the sky?
Who is there to defy the snares of etiquette
And yell that Mighty God is in this flesh?
People might look askance
And be discomfited by the hair-raising
Spectacle of it all,
The unexpected promise
Of something more than we want
(or just what we want)?
Who is there to think of God
Ruling from a crib
With fists now grasping for His mother’s grip
But soon to be driven into wood?
God in these insignificant features
Cute in a baby
But ultimately inconsequential?
Who on earth is there who can break from presents
Long enough to see the gift?
Who is willing to kneel in a manger
For more than a moment
Not just to look in awe
But to change the diaper, too?
To smell the reality of manhood
And not just the sweetness of a baby’s breath?
Who is there to trek through treacherous sands
And rub grit from bleary eyes
For the sake of a God
Who builds wagons – an automaker –
Rather than palaces?
Who is there to be guided by a child
Who is too big for britches
And bigger than an ego
Nurtured by false hopes and promises
Of a more immediate gain?
Who is there to stand up and cry out
I love the Lord!
More than meat on Friday
More than sex without love
More than football on New Year’s Day
More than the opinion of my friends
More than the job
More than family peace
More than the appearance of piety
And more than rest?
He didn’t get much
In that stall
In that church
In that wedding
Or on that hill.
And who is there to notice?
To give more than a glance
To a God incarnate
In the manger
In the mangy
In the little
In the desert
In the hoosegow
In the fancy box
And in the desolation of the wail
"My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"
 painting by Beate Heinen, 1986
This reflection was presented on the Feast of Saint Elizabeth Seton, 2002, so these few segments are included:
"Annunciation Day I shall be made one in Holy Communion with Him Who said, 'Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you can have no part with Me.' I count the days and hours. Yet a few more of hope and expectation, and then..…..At last, God is mine and I am His! Now let all go its round. I have received Him!"
She was able to receive Holy Communion one last time on January 1, Feast of the Circumcision. The previous night the Sister who watched with her urged her to take a refreshing drink to cool her feverish throat. She, whose heart was set on the coming Communion with her dearest Lord, brushed aside the drink, answering, "Never mind the drink. One Communion more and then Eternity."
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Hey thanks DLW! Yes, you are right, that IS what I meant about quickening... To be frank, the pictures and the massive quotations on this thread are quite distracting, so that I am not able to follow the line of reasoning - and so I will leave it to you two. :)
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis
Um, I don't know if you're checking this list or still talking to me but what exactly did I say that was what you meant by quickening?
Pow, I think I'm going to have to wait til later to get back to you on this. If you want to call a conference on this subject, please feel free to do so. Its just emotionally strenuous to respond to all your posts and often it doesn't feel afterwards like we've progressed at all. sorry.
dlw Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | Dave, I don't know how to say this. Especially how you set this up. But I'm not posting "to" you. You always "respond" as if I am.
Besides, when you do "respond" to what I have here it is after not coming to grips with what was here. Respond for yourself--sure. But don't pretend to respond for everybody. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
  |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | 
Botticelli, Annunciation
quote: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you. She was deeply disturbed by these words and asked herself what this greeting could mean, but the angel said to her, 'Mary do not be afraid; you have won God's favor. Listen! You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; he will rule over the house of David and his reign will have no end. Mary said to the angel, 'But how can this come about since I am a virgin?' 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you' the angel answered 'and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God. Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, for nothing is impossible with God.' 'I am the handmaid of the Lord', said Mary 'let what you have said be done to me.' And the angel left her.
(Luke 1: 26-38)
http://www.botticellisvision.com/st%20francis%20web%20site/The%20Annunciation.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by DLW
Should we do a poll on the perceived helpfulness of the majority of your art postings?
dlw
Noted, Dave. You don't percieve the Annunciation to be relevant to the issue of the evil of abortion.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/31/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Verbum caro hic factum est
quote: In the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth there is a plaque with this inscription: Verbum caro hic factum est "the Word was made flesh here." It was there, in that particular place, "a city of Galilee" (Lk 1:26), that God became man. But we can be even more specific: it was in the womb of a virgin named Mary (cf. v. 27) that God the Son, without ceasing to be true God, assumed a complete human nature into the unity of his divine person and became true man. Moreover, according to the Church's teaching, we can be precise about the moment of the Incarnation: it took place when the Virgin Mary said to the angel, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" (v. 38). It was exactly then that, by the overshadowing of the Spirit, a body was fashioned from the Virgin's flesh and blood, a rational soul created and infused into the body and, in the same instant, the complete human nature united to the divine Word. There were no successive stages in this taking of manhood; the body did not come into being before the soul, nor the soul before the body, nor were either ever other than his, God the Son's: the flesh was conceived, ensouled, and assumed simultaneously.
The coincidence of the virginal conception and the hypostatic union is a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith. In the words of the "Formula of Union" agreed between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochene bishops in 433 and canonized by the General Council of Chalcedon in 451, "we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God, because God the Word was made flesh and became man and from the very moment of conception united to himself the temple he had taken from her." Origen's theory that the soul of Christ pre-existed the creation of his body was condemned by the provincial Council of Constantinople in 543, as was the opinion that the body was first formed and only later united to the soul and the Word. This judgement was later confirmed by Pope Vigilius (d. 555). In 675 the eleventh provincial Council of Toledo declared that it was in his "wonderful conception" that the Word was made flesh, and five years later the Third General Council of Constantinople officially approved the synodal epistle of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638), which contains this relevant passage:
"He truly became man who is ever acknowledged to be God, and is shown to be in his Mother's womb who is in the bosom of the eternal Father, and the timeless accepts a beginning in time. He did not become these things in unreal appearance (as the Manichees and Valentinians think), but in truth and reality he emptied the whole of himself by the will that is his own and the Father's, and assumed the whole mass [of our nature], flesh consubstantial with us, a rational soul of the same kind as ours, a mind like ours. For man is and is known to be all these things; and he was made man in truth at the very instant of his conception in the all-holy Virgin."
(from: American Bioethics Advisory Commission, Appendix: An Approach to a Key Theological Question http://www.all.org/abac/clontx10.htm)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6) |   |
It was exactly then that, by the overshadowing of the Spirit, a body was fashioned from the Virgin's flesh and blood, a rational soul created and infused into the body and, in the same instant, the complete human nature united to the divine Word. There were no successive stages in this taking of manhood; the body did not come into being before the soul, nor the soul before the body, nor were either ever other than his, God the Son's: the flesh was conceived, ensouled, and assumed simultaneously.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:39 AM (GMT -6) |   |
The coincidence of the virginal conception and the hypostatic union is a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith. In the words of the "Formula of Union" agreed between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochene bishops in 433 and canonized by the General Council of Chalcedon in 451, "we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God, because God the Word was made flesh and became man and from the very moment of conception united to himself the temple he had taken from her."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/1/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Origen's theory that the soul of Christ pre-existed the creation of his body was condemned by the provincial Council of Constantinople in 543, as was the opinion that the body was first formed and only later united to the soul and the Word. This judgement was later confirmed by Pope Vigilius (d. 555). In 675 the eleventh provincial Council of Toledo declared that it was in his "wonderful conception" that the Word was made flesh, and five years later the Third General Council of Constantinople officially approved the synodal epistle of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638), which contains this relevant passage:
"He truly became man who is ever acknowledged to be God, and is shown to be in his Mother's womb who is in the bosom of the eternal Father, and the timeless accepts a beginning in time. He did not become these things in unreal appearance (as the Manichees and Valentinians think), but in truth and reality he emptied the whole of himself by the will that is his own and the Father's, and assumed the whole mass [of our nature], flesh consubstantial with us, a rational soul of the same kind as ours, a mind like ours. For man is and is known to be all these things; and he was made man in truth at the very instant of his conception in the all-holy Virgin."
| | Back to Top | | |
 | 85 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:40 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|