The Church Courtyard > The Sacred Sciences

Jesus' birth was not a phantasm

(1/4) > >>

Philip G.:
The definition of phantasm is: a figment of the imagination; an illusion or apparition.  An illusory likeness of something.

Pope John ii 534ad: ... Therefore, because the Son of God was properly and truly made flesh from her and born of her, we confess that she was properly and truly the Mother of God made incarnate and born from her, and properly indeed, lest it be believed that the Lord Jesus received the name of God through honor or grace, as the foolish Nestorius thinks; but truly for this reason, lest it be believed that He took flesh in a phantasm or some other manner, not true flesh from the virgin, just as the impious Eutyches has asserted." 

St. agapetus i 535 and St. Silverius 536 are named under this confession, I presume because they concur.

How does the description that Jesus was born "like light passing through a glass", where the "light doesn't harm the glass" not characterize a phantasm or some other manner condemned above by these holy popes of the early church? 

The definition of miracle is :a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

In the whole statement of Pope John ii, miraculous is not mentioned once regarding the birth of our Lord.  Our Lady is the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  That is a miracle.  But, when Jesus was born, "Mary kept all of the things in her heart".  But, she did not keep in her heart what immediately had just occurred when she visited her cousin Elizabeth.  No, Mary said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord".  Mary gave us the magnificat, in response to that great miracle.  But, when Jesus was born, "Mary kept these things in her heart".  Why?  Is it because it was not to be attributed to a divine agency? 

Our Lady gave birth to Jesus yet remained a virgin through conception and delivery of Her Son. This is miraculous.

Philip G.:

--- Quote from: Melkor on April 09, 2021, 08:38:07 PM ---Our Lady gave birth to Jesus yet remained a virgin through conception and delivery of Her Son. This is miraculous.

--- End quote ---

Nature existed in the garden of paradise.  What we now have is fallen nature.  What is natural to Mary, may sound like a miracle to us.  But, it is still natural.  It is an unblemished immaculate natural.

Philip G.:
I am not necessarily for considering the carnal birth of Our Lord not a miracle.  However, I am against describing that miracle in terms of something that is not a miracle, such as light traveling through glass.  That is not a miracle.  Glass is a man made creature, and is not to be conflated with such a sacred occasion.  To do so in my opinion would cross over into a territory that this papal teaching rejects.  Because, when I first hear that example, my brain registers it as Our Lord like a ghost just traveling from the womb of the virgin, out into this world.  Because, that is what light does when it travels through a window.  It just goes right through like the glass is not even there.  This is not what I believe happened with the virgin birth.  I believe it was carnal, and this papal teaching suggests the very same.  However, the glass example proponents might just argue it is only for the sake of saying that the light doesn't hurt the glass.  But, it is still not a good example, and suggests some phantasm/optical illusion that this papal teaching condemns.  Not a good example. 

The Nativity was not carnal. Stop right there, you are treading in dangerous territory.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version