|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Mary the Female Counterpart of Christ?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
If God was incarnate by the Holy Spirit into Mary's womb, could it be said that He took on Mary's flesh? Christ's human body came from Mary's human body. We have no idea where His Y-chromosomes or half of his other chromosomes came from, if He even had a human genome like we now understand it. Therefore, all we know is that God incarnated into human flesh that before the Incarnation was an egg cell of Mary's body. Where is the dividing line between Mary being the vessel that bore the Incarnation and Mary being the body into which God incarnated?
I'll admit that Christ and Mary have separate bodies and separate souls. I am not sure at what point their bodies and sould became separate. I don't want to get into the Dead Horse abortion issue, but I'm not entirely sure that a woman's body instantly changes to one body and soul residing in another body and soul at the moment of a child's conception.
First of all, I am not suggesting that Mary is God, but I am rather asking what the fact that it was in and from her body that the Incarnation occurred means.
Even if Mary and Christ had separate bodies and souls from the moment of Christ's conception, did did the Incarnation, the Atonement, etc. affect or involve her in ways different than all other humans? I am not referring specifically to the Immaculate Conception - but it might be germane if it has to do with her specialness in terms of Christ's saving work.
Basically - in what way was Mary's humanness different from Christ's humanness - and how were both different from the humanness of everyone else? How did the Incarnation into Mary's womb affect her body, soul, and humanity in ways different different than how it affected the body, soul, and humanity of Christ (or different from how it affected the body, soul, and humanity of everyone else)?
I am wondering whether or not Christ's fleshly link with Mary would mean that she participates in His Incarnation, Atonement, Salvation, Prohphecy, Teaching, Miracles, Priesthood (although we won't talk women's ordination here), Kingship, etc., in a special way - just as the people of Israel that Christ was born into and perhaps even the Davidic dynasty from which Christ descended might have participated in Christ's saving plan in a special way.
This all ties into discussions on other threads about the significance of the maleness of God and the maleness of Christ. The first Eve came from the first Adam, both of whom had sinned and fallen, and through her womb all of the rest of humanity was born into a fallen state. The new Adam, Christ, was came from the new Eve, Mary, and through Him all of humanity was redeemed. Just as Adam and Eve were partners in both the creation and the fall, were Christ and Mary perhaps partners in the Incarnation and in the Redemption of humankind?
Mary might not have her own divinity as an individual/person, but (and here is as heretical as I'll get in this thread), did she perhaps participate in Christ's divinity through the Incarnation in a way different than anyone else - in a way that we could truly say that she is the female counterpart of Christ?
Would this make her recognition in different Christian traditions as the Queen Mother of Heaven and Creation, the embodiment of the Church which is Christ's Body and Bride, the gate of heaven (while Jesus is the Way), etc., make more sense?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If God was incarnate by the Holy Spirit into Mary's womb, could it be said that He took on Mary's flesh? Christ's human body came from Mary's human body. We have no idea where His Y-chromosomes or half of his other chromosomes came from, if He even had a human genome like we now understand it.
According to the Chalcedonian definition, Jesus has a perfect human nature. Which, translated out of the philosophical language used, means he was fully human: he was a member of the species homo sapiens in all ways that count. Therefore he certainly had a human genome as we now understand it.
Mary's human genome is of course shared with her parents, and her ancestors. In so far as Jesus shares Mary's humanity, he shares in all our humanity. Mary is humanity's link to Jesus.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Jesus is his own counterpart, both masculine and feminine qualities are perfected in him (if in fact we dare call any quality by a gender name).
And speaking as a woman who has borne a child, there is indeed a clear dividing kine between us even from the beginning--and this becomes more and more observable as the child grows. It isn't at all as if my son's nature coukd somehow "backflow" in time and flow into my own. It's a one-way process.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Jesus is his own counterpart, both masculine and feminine qualities are perfected in him (if in fact we dare call any quality by a gender name).
And speaking as a woman who has borne a child, there is indeed a clear dividing kine between us even from the beginning--and this becomes more and more observable as the child grows. It isn't at all as if my son's nature coukd somehow "backflow" in time and flow into my own. It's a one-way process.
So is Jesus the perfect mother? The perfect wife? The perfect daughter?
I agree that there is a clear dividing line between mother and child from the beginning - but I am not sure when the beginning is. And discussing whether or not that beginning is at conception is possibly dead horse territory. Hosts: is it?
I basically see the Blessed Virgin Mary as filling the role of God for people in every way possible without being God. Jesus may indeed be the perfection of all humanity, male, female, and otherwise, but she is that perfection visible in female form. But she is not God herself. She, alongside her divine Son, is God's way of showing us divinity with a female countenance.
By the way, I don't think that the Blessed Virgin Mary is limited by her roles as virgin and mother. I think she is a tough courageous leader and probably would have been better at just about anything regarding the Church than any of the apostles. She was, after all, full of grace ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . The facts that she was not ordained or that Peter wound up with the keys and the Papacy are just details. She pretty much is the Church. Other than her Son, who can top that?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
I'm wondering if the issue might be that while, within the world of Greek philosophy, Jesus could be said to be fully/perfectly human, women were in fact imperfect or deficient as human beings (relative to men; all are deficient as sinners etc., but I'm talking about something else) and that Jesus did not actually need to embody every "feminine" trait (weakness, softness, lust, etc.) You can read quite a bit of that misogyny in the Fathers.
But yes, Jesus was the perfect mother--at least of chicks, that is!
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I basically see the Blessed Virgin Mary as filling the role of God for people in every way possible without being God.
What do you mean by "filling" and what do you mean by "the role of God for people"?
I would suggest that, as a creature, Mary can in no way be considered to stand in the place of God. No created thing is to be treated as if they were God: such behaviour is idolatrous.
quote:
. . . but she is that perfection visible in female form.
Why do you think that? She is a finite female human being: she lacks any of the divine perfections and, indeed, enjoys the fullness of our human nature, undamaged by sin only as a result of the particular grace God imparted in view of the merits of her divine Son
quote:
She, alongside her divine Son, is God's way of showing us divinity with a female countenance.
On the contrary, she shows us divinity only in so far as she shows us her humanity - which has a female countenance - which, like your humanity and mine, was made in the image and likeness of God. To suggest any more is clearly idolatrous.
quote:
By the way, I don't think that the Blessed Virgin Mary is limited by her roles as virgin and mother. I think she is a tough courageous leader and probably would have been better at just about anything regarding the Church than any of the apostles.
Nice assertion but where's your evidence.
quote:
She was, after all, full of grace .
Smiley aside, what makes you think that that is what "full of grace" means?
quote:
The facts that she was not ordained or that Peter wound up with the keys and the Papacy are just details. She pretty much is the Church. Other than her Son, who can top that?
She pretty much is not the Church. The Church is the totus Christus, the whole Christ, head and members: the mystical Body of the incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, eternal second person of the Trinity. Mary is no more (and certainly no less) than one member of that Church, who, by God's grace - not her own merits - was kept free from sin. Compare with her divine Son she is like a feather in the scales.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Catholic in whose devotional life Mary plays a very significant part, but God she is not, the Church she is not, an object fitting for worship she is not.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect mother, daughter, or wife. These are not beings, they are roles that beings play. As such, they will vary with the particular constellation of other beings and circumstances within which the role is played. So it is foolish to say that Jesus cannot be the perfect mother, wife, etc. The qualities required for those roles (as wisdom, patience, authority, obedience)--those he has in perfection. The fact that he has never been thrust into that particular role is no more an incompletion in him than the fact that he has never been thrust into the role of a firefighter or painter.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In Christology class, we wondered whether or not Jesus asserted himself against Mary.
We reasoned that the individual human, as part of growing up, needs to assert a certain autonomy from his or her mother and father. This is entirely consistent with obedience to the commandment to honor one's parents. One honors one's parents differently in each life stage. An adult does not treat his or mother/father the same way that he or she treats them as a fragile baby.
Youthful independence is part of growing up. It is not a sin.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Jesus takes his flesh from Mary, but then every child takes its flesh from its parents and that doesn't make it equivalent to its parents. Mary is not "the same as" Jesus in terms of who she is (she is not God incarnate) or what her role is (she is not the Savior of the World, and her incarnation, death, and resurrection do not unite our nature to the divine, nor save us from sin or death). She is not seated at the right hand of the Father. If you look at the "Jesus part" of the Nicene Creed, she's not any of those things.
However she did carry God in her womb for 9 months, and has a relationship with him that none of us will ever have. In that she is unlike any other human that ever lived or ever will. But that is not to say that the relationship that is held out to us isn't an infinitely precious thing.
She is indeed worthy to be called blessed by all generations. But she is not God nor should she be worshiped as God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Christology class, we wondered whether or not Jesus asserted himself against Mary.
Yes.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In Christology class, we wondered whether or not Jesus asserted himself against Mary.
Yes.
And in popular culture she gave as good as she got: quote:
Mary mild called home her Child,
And laid our Saviour across her knee,
And with a whole handful of bitter withy
She gave Him slashes three.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Mary is no more (and certainly no less) than one member of that Church, who, by God's grace - not her own merits - was kept free from sin. Compare with her divine Son she is like a feather in the scales.
Except for the sinless bit, you would've fit right into my childhood fundy Prot. church.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I suddenly thought that fetal/foetal microchimerism might be interesting to discuss here.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/baby-gives-back-fetus-capable-saving-moms-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
So there is a good chance that some of Jesus' cells remained in Mary for the rest of her earthly life. Since she has been bodily assumed into heaven, I am assuming that she has the equivalent of a glorified resurrected body, so I do not know whether or not any fetal cells of Jesus' that were with her at the end of her earthly life are still in her body in heaven.
This raises some interesting questions.
If some of Jesus' cells were/are in Mary's body (not just in her womb), are they still Jesus' cells? Are they Mary's cells? Is God still incarnate in those cells?
If you think that such cells would just be foreign cells living in Mary and not Mary's own cells, consider that chimerism (the presence of cells with different genomes in one organism) is so common in humans that the idea of a person just having one genetic code that determine's their health is becoming obsolete. If the embryos of two twins merge in the womb (which can occur), the resultant person can have a very large percentage of his/her cells with the genome of his/her twin - actually, the question of which of the two twins the person "is" is difficult to answer.
Chimerism has resulted in women being declared to not be the biological mothers of their children based on a genetic test. The women were in fact the biological mothers but it is assumed that the women were the result of two twin embryos that had merged in the womb.
http://www.academia.edu/202539/Which_Half_Is_Mommy_Tetragametic_Chimerism_and_Trans-Subjectivity
http://web.archive.org/web/20060526105634/http://www.five.tv/programmes/extraordinarypeople/twininside/
I wear my heresy on my sleeve, so I'm not that worried about being accused of idolatry. I'm not claiming that Mary is God in the same way that Jesus is God. If asked whether or not Mary is God, I would still say no. I am wondering whether or not the Incarnation might have affected Mary in a special way different than other non-Christ humans, and the womb intimacy of her and Christ, possibly reflected in a two-directional transfer of cells between them, probably explains this better than what I was saying before.
If cells that originated in Jesus' body lived on in Mary's body and became Mary's cells - cells that were just as much part of her as cells that had the genome she was born with (if she was born with only one genome) - does that mean that God took on her flesh as well as Jesus'?
Could it be that the Incarnation is a spectrum with Christ as its fullness and perfection and with all other humans and the rest of creation at the other end (since the Incarnation, along with the rest of Christ's saving work, transformed all creation), but with Mary somewhere in between?
I'm open to arguments that this is an inappropriate use of scientific findings - I'm a little worried that I am not coming up with these arguments myself right now.
Trisagion, Mousethief, and Lamb Chopped (and others), since you represent at least three different Christian traditions and had no trouble dismissing my suggestions earlier, could you please respond to this? I know that you will think it is nonsense, and it could very well be nonsense, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm well aware of micro (and macro) chimerism. And I have no problem with the idea that some of Jesus' cells ended up in Mary's bloodstream--and vice versa. I would expect that, given the odds.
But the problem here is that Jesus' deity does not reside in separate and separable individual cells, as such. Nor does his human personality, for that matter. Christ is not divisible. I have no doubt I carry chimeric cells from my son LL; that does not mean that any of his personality, his psyche, his soul inheres in me. And that seems to be what you are supposing.
Look at it this way. If Jesus had donated a kidney or two at his death, would that make the recipient partially divine? Of course not. Those kidneys logically form part of the perfect human nature, not the divine nature which is forever joined with it. If they had gone on to do service for some other person, that would be wonderful--but the recipient would not be any more or less him/herself than before. He/she would not become 10% Jesus.
Or consider Jesus' toenail clippings, or the skin flakes that he shed all the time, just as we all do. I mean, really. If a pig or a cow were to hoover up some of those particles in its feed and they became a part of the creature's body, would THAT ... ? No, it is too absurd even to write.
I'm sorry, but I think that in your quest to glorify Mary, you are going the wrong way about it. Her proper glory is in being the one creature in which God himself chose to become incarnate--and in going on to form the center of the human family which raised him and continued to play a part in his life (for good and bad!) even after the resurrection. This is an honor so great it should strike people dumb.
Mary would not wish to be independent of her Son and Savior. He is her glory and her beloved. What mother thinks of herself rather than her child? Even for us ordinary mothers (and fathers!) the child comes first, before us. How much more if the child were God himself!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
stonespring, imagine yourself crafting an actual idol. Would you not be worried about the right materials, shaped in the right way, perhaps in the third moon of August in a special place? This is not what the Incarnation is really about. Jesus Christ's piss and shit was spread over Palestine, are you hence going to sift Middle Eastern dust for the Divine essence? You are hunting for the wrong sort of "magic" there...
The drama of Mary is not in the biology of the Lord. Can you say "behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word"? Then you have the DNA of sainthood, and will bring God to the world in the flesh. If you see a sign pointing to where you want to go, follow. Don't take it down to analyze its chemical composition in the lab. That will not deliver any special secrets to you, it will just delay your journey.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
As for bits of Jesus containing His divinity, if the foreskin of Christ really does exist as a relic, would it be wrong to worship it?
Science can't prove or disprove theology. But it does make me think. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything and I really appreciate your thoughts because I am as usual confused.
I am concerned with the idea that every human being is an isolated individual, and I am extending this concern to Jesus. I'm not so sure about that. I don't really know that there is an exact point where I end and the next person begins. This is why the common evangelical statement that "Jesus is my personal savior" seems very confusing to me. How could Jesus save just me without saving someone else, or everyone else He saves, in the process?
I agree with the idea of theism that God is wholly separate from and transcendent from Creation. Christianity provides the caveat that God became incarnate as Jesus. But is "Jesus" limited to one human body? I'm not sure that "human person" and "human body" are the same thing, or that they correspond to the same set of atoms. I can't disprove that they do, but I don't seem convinced by the evidence that they do either.
And what makes Jesus' humanity different than Mary's humanity? If Jesus' body is fully human, why is worshipping it any less idolatrous than worshipping Mary's body? I am not proposing that people worship Mary in any way. I do think that the hyperdulia (special veneration) offered the Blessed Virgin Mary only differs from Latria (Worship) by language and gestures that seem like tokens to justify what to any impartial observer would be worship. I'm ok with doublethink. I think that is what Christianity is all about. It is very beautiful doublethink (and sometimes triplethink or multiplethink). I don't think humans are even capable of fully logically coherent singlethink. So for me, Mary is not Christ's Body, but she represents it in a way that in all but name appears to correspond to reality. Similarly, she is not divine, but we treat her in a way that in all but name appears to correspond to worship. You can go on and on about how prayers to Mary are different from prayers to the Godhead. And you would be right. But Mary's intercession and God's action in response to them are so unified that distinguishing them seems only necessary to fulfill the requirements of human language.
I have said elsewhere that I feel a visceral discomfort with the fact the Jesus' male body is the only image of God that really is God and not just depiction of God. Yes, I'm male and I know tons of women have no problem with the only Incarnate Godman being male, but I want to touch and kiss and be ravished by a God that is bodily female - and by a God that is bodily male. I also want to see God's female face and not just God's male face. Mary maybe isn't the right way to do that. But she seems to be all I have at the moment. She isn't God. But she is so special that I just want to fall on my knees - no, I want to prostrate myself before her - and say "I can't worship you, but I love you and give myself completely to you in whatever way that as closely resembles how I give myself to your Son without being sinful." Let God work out the details of language. I am hers and His.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Returning to the drily logical--
Jesus can be worshipped in his human nature because of the Personal Union that binds his two natures together as one Christ. Anyone or anything created that does not participate in that union is not eligible for worship.
I do sympathize with the emotional side you expressed, but suspect it can and will find its true answer within Christ himself. He doesn't hesitate to describe himself usunf feminine imagery.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
Jesus' body is Jesus.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Stonespring: I'm not following your train of thought here -- I'm just not understanding what you're trying to articulate -- but just a passing observation that "Jesus is my personal Savior" is a rather modern sentiment embraced by a subset of Christendom. It's not something to hang your hang your hat on, theologically speaking. While most Christians believe that it is possible to engage with Christ on a personal level, the point of the Incarnation was to reconcile all of humanity -- and if you believe Paul, all of creation -- with God.
Mary, whose "yes" to God allowed her to become the means by which the Incarnation took place, has a unique place among humanity, and as such is worthy of remembrance and honor. But that doesn't put her on any sort of par with Christ or embue Christ with some sort of special quality of human DNA that wouldn't be so had the Incarnation happened anywhere/anytime else.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
Jesus' body is Jesus.
Yup. That's kinda what "inCARNation" means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
Jesus' body is Jesus.
Yup. That's kinda what "inCARNation" means.
Well, yes, thanks chaps, gosh darn I'd never noticed.
However, stonespring was talking about worshipping Jesus' foreskin if it were found. My response was in that context: I don't worship Jesus the collection of cells, I worship Jesus the person. As mousethief himself pointed out, one doesn't tootle around Israel searching for holy poop dust ...
I would have thought you capable of following that ...
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would have thought you capable of following that ...
I would have thought you capable of not posting insults in Purg.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
I don't know your particular churchmanship, but what would your thoughts be on relics?
My understanding is that originally, because the small c- Catholic Church insisted that the physicality of the human body was important, that the bones and remains of Saints were to be respected. They are "gone", yes, in heaven, but their holiness left a residue in their physical remains.
Broadly speaking, it would be worth reflecting on the remains of all the dead. When I die, I will lose consciousness, and my body will be a shell of my self. Does it make sense for example, to visit my remains as if I (in terms of my self-consciousness) was actually living in the cemetery or the crematorium. From a Christian POV, my soul will be in heaven or possibly purgatory, so one would not really be visiting "Me" when one visits the graveyard.
I hope I'm making sense.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
Jesus' body is Jesus.
Yup. That's kinda what "inCARNation" means.
Well, yes, thanks chaps, gosh darn I'd never noticed.
However, stonespring was talking about worshipping Jesus' foreskin if it were found. My response was in that context: I don't worship Jesus the collection of cells, I worship Jesus the person. As mousethief himself pointed out, one doesn't tootle around Israel searching for holy poop dust ...
I would have thought you capable of following that ...
You were probably capable of making a point without a heretical argument, but you didn't. Oh well.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus. So no, I wouldn't worship his foreskin, hair trimmings or any other discarded bits. They're just stuff, not him.
I don't know your particular churchmanship, but what would your thoughts be on relics?
My understanding is that originally, because the small c- Catholic Church insisted that the physicality of the human body was important, that the bones and remains of Saints were to be respected. They are "gone", yes, in heaven, but their holiness left a residue in their physical remains.
Broadly speaking, it would be worth reflecting on the remains of all the dead. When I die, I will lose consciousness, and my body will be a shell of my self. Does it make sense for example, to visit my remains as if I (in terms of my self-consciousness) was actually living in the cemetery or the crematorium. From a Christian POV, my soul will be in heaven or possibly purgatory, so one would not really be visiting "Me" when one visits the graveyard.
I hope I'm making sense.
But this "Me" which is you isn't a soul encased in a body. That's not Christianity that's Platonism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Whatever. The point is (isn't it?) that you can't separate Christ. You can't divide the two natures, you can't (sensibly) go off and treat his toenail clippings as if they were a budded off bit of deity, and by the same principle you can't regard microchimeric cells shed by him before his birth as somehow conveying deity to the person they reside in. To divide Christ is to lose Him. He is not an aggregate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
mousethief:
quote:
I would have thought you capable of not posting insults in Purg.
Actually, it was genuine incredulity, although I'll admit phrased in a slightly snarky way, for which apologies if it sailed too close to the wind.
Zach82:
quote:
You were probably capable of making a point without a heretical argument, but you didn't. Oh well.
Really? The only way you can possibly read what I wrote is as a heresy, in some way denying either the reality of the incarnation or the full divinity and humanity of Jesus? You would genuinely argue that Jesus, in the context of being a person of the Godhead due our worship and love, is inherent in a piece of dead, inanimate flesh once attached to his physical body but long since dead and discarded?
Anglican_Brat:
quote:
I don't know your particular churchmanship, but what would your thoughts be on relics?
As objects to turn one's mind/thoughts/spirit/however you choose to express it towards God, holiness, "higher things" I have no particular problem with relics. Personally I remain somewhat sceptical over any magical/mystical properties - I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but it does rather smack of superstition/credulity and does not appear to be desperately coherent with the nature of the miraculous etc. from the Bible.
All of which is probably unsurprising given my churchmanship/background is essentially fairly low, non-conformist, but broadened by wider reading and a fairly non-tribal/non-brand-loyal approach to denominations/specific praxis.
On the wider point, it would appear Lamb Chopped has expressed more fully/coherently what I was originally seeking to express.
Apologies to all if his is not as well-rounded or joined up as it could be. I only have limited time, and am being constantly interrupted by an insane dog, which is not helping the process of articulation.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Apologies to all if his is not as well-rounded or joined up as it could be. I only have limited time, and am being constantly interrupted by an insane dog, which is not helping the process of articulation.
IMO, you're doing fine, Snags. I only read this discussion after the clarifications following your post which Zach82 objected to so vigorously, but your initial post seemed clear enough to me.
Anyway, I don't think there's no need to pay attention to bald accusations of heresy like that; if people can't or don't wish to elaborate, but would rather just shout 'Heretic!', I'd just let it pass by.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Apologies to all if his is not as well-rounded or joined up as it could be. I only have limited time, and am being constantly interrupted by an insane dog, which is not helping the process of articulation.
IMO, you're doing fine, Snags. I only read this discussion after the clarifications following your post which Zach82 objected to so vigorously, but your initial post seemed clear enough to me.
Anyway, I don't think there's no need to pay attention to bald accusations of heresy like that; if people can't or don't wish to elaborate, but would rather just shout 'Heretic!', I'd just let it pass by.
You also think there's no need to substantiate your accusations that other people are disobeying God's will, so your opinions are worth about two handfuls of crap.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That reads like a category error - we don't worship Jesus' body, we worship Jesus.
Jesus' body is Jesus.
That's true as far as extension goes. But not necessarily intentionally. It's true that Johnny Depp's body is Johnny Depp. But that doesn't mean that a woman thinking about Johnny Depp and a woman thinking about Johnny Depp's body are doing the same thing. Worshipping is a verb with an intentional object here: the object includes the aspect under which the object is worshipped.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
mousethief:
quote:
I would have thought you capable of not posting insults in Purg.
Actually, it was genuine incredulity, although I'll admit phrased in a slightly snarky way, for which apologies if it sailed too close to the wind.
Handsomely said. Apology accepted.
quote:
As objects to turn one's mind/thoughts/spirit/however you choose to express it towards God, holiness, "higher things" I have no particular problem with relics. Personally I remain somewhat sceptical over any magical/mystical properties - I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but it does rather smack of superstition/credulity and does not appear to be desperately coherent with the nature of the miraculous etc. from the Bible.
And yet, and yet....
quote:
Originally posted by 2 Kings 12:31
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
There is Biblical witness to the power of relics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
If one could prove that a relic was a genuine bona fide bit of Jesus’ body, I think I would come down on the side that it’s still wrong to worship it. Those cells are dead.
We are not meant to look for Christ in the tomb – He is not there.
Or so ISTM, anyway.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
My question about the Holy Prepuce (Christ's foreskin) was genuine: I'm not sure that when a relic is actually part of Jesus' body, whether or not it is sinful to worship it. (All other relics are venerated, not worshipped.) The Eucharist, whether it is the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine, is all of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity, and Divinity, even in just a particle or drop. It is not divisible. Similarly, wherever there is a congregation of the faithful with a bishop (who has the fullness of the ministerial priesthood), Christ's Body the Church is there in its fullness.
So I am not sure if "all" of Jesus is present in part of His body. I am not sure if His human waste contained cells, but if it did, those cells could be argued to be part of His body. In the court of Louis XIV, people had to bow to the used royal bedpan as it was removed from the King's bedchamber, but that is a bit of a tangent. A foreskin is much more clearly a part of the human Body. I wonder if Christ's foreskin is still here on Earth (or His hair, for that matter), whether it is alive or not. If it were from any other human body, we would call it dead. But Christ's Body is now resurrected and glorified. It's very different from how His body was even before His death. It was removed from His body and "died" before His death - but I really don't know if at any point it lost its divinity.
The official RC teaching may indeed be that it is sinful to worship Christ's foreskin, while it is not sinful to worship (adore) the Eucharist. I don't know and I am wondering who does know.
By the way, there is quite a big devotion to Christ's Sacred Heart - in both the sense of the literal organ and the metaphorical sense of the seat of His human emotions and embodiment of His compassion. Let's suppose that there was a devotion to Christ's kidneys as the filterers that removed impurities from the Blood of His Church (okay, it's a stretch). If Christ had donated one of His kidneys before the Crucifixion (and if the technology to do a kidney transplant had existed at that time) - and let's say that He chose to donate the kidney rather than just heal the sick person because it was for the fulfillment of righteousness or something like that - would the kidney still be part of Christ's Body? Would it still be divine? Would the person carrying the kidney be, to some degree, divinity Incarnate?
I don't worship Mary. She isn't God. In a way I am asking these questions so that I an have a clearer idea of why the answer is no, rather than to argue that the answer is yes.
I do think that Mary could be a female icon for God. She is not God, but through her we can see God. In that way, we have something female to look at that shows us God. Jesus is male and shows us God, too, but He also is God. He is the perfection of humanity in a way that transcends gender. But it helps to have a female face, and not just a male face, to look at that is a window to God. All human beings could be said to be icons of God in this way, but Mary, in being preserved from Original Sin and free from concupiscence in her body/soul before her earthly life ended, and in being the vessel chosen to bear the Incarnate God, is a very special Icon of God - the second best Icon after her Son. That is what I was getting at earlier. I'm not sure if it's true but I think it's worth talking about.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whatever. The point is (isn't it?) that you can't separate Christ. You can't divide the two natures, you can't (sensibly) go off and treat his toenail clippings as if they were a budded off bit of deity, and by the same principle you can't regard microchimeric cells shed by him before his birth as somehow conveying deity to the person they reside in. To divide Christ is to lose Him. He is not an aggregate.
I like the psychological concept of Gestalt on this. It basically means that the whole is not the sum of its parts, and that if taken into parts becomes something else.
There is a modern parable about this, where the members of a civilisation were all given a single brain neuron to tend and keep. They connected the neurons like with a form of the internet which replicated that way neurons actually transmit information to each other, and they also input experience through neurons that perceived sight and sound and touch etc. The question was whether this dissected brain's experience was the same as its twin that remained within a human being which had the actual experiences and happenings that formed the inputs to the dissected brain.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I do think that Mary could be a female icon for God.
Every woman, Christian or not, is a female icon for God, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. We are made in His image (eikon).
As you probably know, the Orthodox Church does not believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or of Mary's being kept pure from Original Sin from the moment of her conception, because our concept of Original Sin doesn't work that way.
She is however very special in that she is the point at which the uncreated intersects the created. She is the offering of the entirety of pre-Christian mankind, as we sing in our Christmas hymnody: Each part of nature offers thee that which is fitting: the angels, praise; the shepherds, wonder; the earth, a cave; the wise men, gifts; and we offer thee a spotless virgin mother. (paraphrasing here). (I may have left out the Star but I forget what it offered. Light? Guidance? Navigation?)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yet, and yet....
quote:
Originally posted by 2 Kings 12:31
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
There is Biblical witness to the power of relics.
You'll note the rather generous amount of wiggle room within my comments
I would still hold to the view that it's not impossible, just very improbable, and most definitely very, very open to abuse, misuse and general "unhelpfulness". So I wouldn't rule it out, but I would take a lot of convincing. I could imagine an extremely heated debate amongst those of strong views on the passage from Kings!
[fixed generous amount of wiggle room in UBB code]
[ 07. January 2014, 05:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would still hold to the view that it's not impossible, just very improbable
On what grounds do you argue that?
quote:
and most definitely very, very open to abuse, misuse and general "unhelpfulness".
True. So is the Bible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would still hold to the view that it's not impossible, just very improbable
On what grounds do you argue that?
I assume we're talking about why I would hold to the view that relics are most likely to be just dead bits of "stuff" rather than have any particular inherent mystical power to "do magic" (horrible shorthand, not meant to be dismissive, pleading the need for speed)?
It's something of a tangent to the OP, and I (genuinely) don't have time to go into it in depth, but as very, very brief skim and therefore open to all kinds of horrible misunderstanding depending on whether we gloss the gaps I leave in the same way or not ...
That any one specific alleged relic have some particular inherent supernatural property which can directly act in the present physical world is improbable because generally that's just not how the world works. Even with relics (unless we're going to start splitting hairs about True Relics and False Relics). AFAIAA the vast majority of things claimed to be relics and infused with some mystical mojo fall somewhere on the line between sincere wishful thinking and outright charlatanism.
One can play the game of "Of course you can't reproduce it at will, you shouldn't put God to the test" but ultimately it boils down to the same kind of hand-waving which not unreasonably gets the more outré Evangelical and Charismatic tendencies a bit of a mauling on here (angel feathers, gold dust showers, manifestations etc.). Sauce for the goose and all that.
Christ's fingers, only available in boxes of ten ...
It's not impossible because, well, God.
I would also suggest that whilst there may be isolated incidents that give rise to possibility the overall thrust of Scripture (I come from a tradition which does not have a formal Tradition) is to point towards the person of God (expressed however: Father, Son, Spirit, Trinity) and the whole narrative of salvation, wholeness, relationship and creation restored. It feels like the mythos (non-pejorative) around relics is too apt to run counter to that: I'll put my faith in St Wossname's toenail clipping that my crops will come up, rather than putting my faith in God that he loves me come what may. That's overly crude and blunt because of brevity and the whole thing not being my specialist subject, just trying to expand on my personal feelings/views which are largely formed by both my secular and spiritual education, culture, background and so on.
But still, not impossible because, well, God. And just because you've never seen a black swan ...
I hope that helps - I don't really want to head off down a dodgy back alley on this one, for all kinds of reasons. I'm just a sucker for trying to answer questions that seem honestly asked, which isn't always good or helpful on more combative discussion forums.
quote:
quote:
and most definitely very, very open to abuse, misuse and general "unhelpfulness".
True. So is the Bible.
Well, amen!
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
