Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => The Sacred Sciences => Topic started by: Philip G. on May 16, 2020, 02:41:35 AM

Title: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 16, 2020, 02:41:35 AM
Is there a modern(and/or perhaps traditional) school of thought that teaches that the Virgin Mary was present or existed in the beginning/at creation? 

I recall I think it was bishop barron's Catholicism pivitol players michaelangelo video talking about the painting "the creation of adam".  It is the one where the fingers are about to touch.  And, next to god there is a woman and an infant who god's other finger is pointing to.  That infant is apparently Christ, and the woman is thought to be the virgin mary.  I think that is what I recall.  Either way, that would be an example that there is belief present in the church(Michaelangelo) that the virgin mary existed in the beginning/at the creation of Adam. 

Can anyone provide me with more examples and/or evidence of this?
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Gardener on May 16, 2020, 01:50:07 PM
Probably a reference to Proverbs 8:22, which the Church uses in reference to Our Lady, as applied to Wisdom as an archetype of her. However, she did not exist until her Immaculate Conception, just as the human soul of Christ did not exist until His Incarnation. There is no preconception Mary vice the pre-Incarnate Logos.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 05:13:12 PM
I recall a discussion here on SD within the past year where a frequent poster accused another frequent poster of believing/confessing the existence of Mary at creation as a result of one of one of their posts.  And, I don't think it was a vague reference like proverb 8:22.  Although, that is the also the quote that immediately comes to my mind.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 05:34:12 PM
Probably a reference to Proverbs 8:22, which the Church uses in reference to Our Lady, as applied to Wisdom as an archetype of her. However, she did not exist until her Immaculate Conception, just as the human soul of Christ did not exist until His Incarnation. There is no preconception Mary vice the pre-Incarnate Logos.

I don't often exercise this muscle, so perhaps now is a good time.  What do you mean by "just as" "the human soul of Christ did not exist until his Incarnation"?  It sounds as though you are making an equal comparison or sorts.  Within the context of things being a mystery, are you saying that Our Lady and Our Lord share an comparable mystery in this regard?  And, what exactly is the mystery regarding the existence of the Virgin Mary?  Is it perhaps that a legitimate part of her existed at creation "just as" you say Christ's human soul did not exist until such an such time? 

DZ 168 (3) Although, I say, in accordance with this confession this must piously be believed regarding the conception of our Lord, although it can in no wise be explained, the Eutychians assert that there is one nature, that is, the divine; and Nestorius none the less mentions a single [nature] , namely, the human; if we must maintain two against the Eutychians, because they draw out one, it follows that we should without doubt proclaim also in opposition to Nestorius who declares one, that not one, but rather two existed as a unity from His beginning, properly adding the human, contrary to Eutyches, who attempts to defend one, that is, the divine only, in order to show that the two, upon which that remarkable mystery rests, endure there; in opposition to Nestorius indeed, who similarly says one, namely, the human, we nevertheless substitute the divine, so that in like manner we hold that two against his one with a true division have existed in the plenitude of this mystery from the primordial effects of His union, and we refute both who chatter in a different way of single[natures], not each of them in regard to one only, but both in respect to the abiding possession of two natures: to wit, the human and divine, united from His beginning without any confusion or defect.
 
(4) For although one and the same person is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole God man and the whole man God, and whatever there is of humanity, the God man makes his own, and whatever there is of God, the man God possesses, nevertheless, granted that this remains a mystery and cannot be explained in any degree, thus the whole man continues to be what God is, [as?] the whole God continues to be whatever man is . . . *


Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 06:09:44 PM
I think this is a relevant scripture passage. 

Mt 23,14 - "woe to you scribes and Pharisee, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers.  For this you shall receive the greater judgment."

Just as the scribes/pharisees were condemned for devouring the houses of widows; we do not devour the heavenly home of the virgin mary, who fulfilling a mother/son - queen/king role, is proximate a widow.  And, the reason we do not, is because unlike Christ who in DZ 168 "possesses God, wherever there is God", the same is not said about the Virgin.  "In my fathers house there are many rooms". 
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Gardener on May 17, 2020, 06:42:28 PM
Probably a reference to Proverbs 8:22, which the Church uses in reference to Our Lady, as applied to Wisdom as an archetype of her. However, she did not exist until her Immaculate Conception, just as the human soul of Christ did not exist until His Incarnation. There is no preconception Mary vice the pre-Incarnate Logos.

I don't often exercise this muscle, so perhaps now is a good time.  What do you mean by "just as" "the human soul of Christ did not exist until his Incarnation"?  It sounds as though you are making an equal comparison or sorts.  Within the context of things being a mystery, are you saying that Our Lady and Our Lord share an comparable mystery in this regard?  And, what exactly is the mystery regarding the existence of the Virgin Mary?  Is it perhaps that a legitimate part of her existed at creation "just as" you say Christ's human soul did not exist until such an such time? 

DZ 168 (3) Although, I say, in accordance with this confession this must piously be believed regarding the conception of our Lord, although it can in no wise be explained, the Eutychians assert that there is one nature, that is, the divine; and Nestorius none the less mentions a single [nature] , namely, the human; if we must maintain two against the Eutychians, because they draw out one, it follows that we should without doubt proclaim also in opposition to Nestorius who declares one, that not one, but rather two existed as a unity from His beginning, properly adding the human, contrary to Eutyches, who attempts to defend one, that is, the divine only, in order to show that the two, upon which that remarkable mystery rests, endure there; in opposition to Nestorius indeed, who similarly says one, namely, the human, we nevertheless substitute the divine, so that in like manner we hold that two against his one with a true division have existed in the plenitude of this mystery from the primordial effects of His union, and we refute both who chatter in a different way of single[natures], not each of them in regard to one only, but both in respect to the abiding possession of two natures: to wit, the human and divine, united from His beginning without any confusion or defect.
 
(4) For although one and the same person is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole God man and the whole man God, and whatever there is of humanity, the God man makes his own, and whatever there is of God, the man God possesses, nevertheless, granted that this remains a mystery and cannot be explained in any degree, thus the whole man continues to be what God is, [as?] the whole God continues to be whatever man is . . . *


I frankly have no idea how you could draw from what I wrote that I was asserting any of the things you questioned. You’re overthinking what I wrote.

Simply put, Mary did not exist until her conception. If such were the case (pre-existence) then she would not be a descendent of Adam, nor would Christ in his human nature (actually, I’d argue that would make them both not human, if we understand Adam as the first man — something foundational to all theology as concerns mankind), etc. It basically makes the Incarnation... not the Incarnation. It also makes the Immaculate Conception nothing of the sort, since once cannot be preserved from what isn’t yet in existence. It would basically be, I dunno, genetic docetism, or something, as causally traced from Mary to Christ.

Note, though, that making distinctions about the divine and human nature of Christ in order to understand both is not the same as embracing the heresy of Nestorianism. And it is not my intention to do so.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 09:57:46 PM
Probably a reference to Proverbs 8:22, which the Church uses in reference to Our Lady, as applied to Wisdom as an archetype of her. However, she did not exist until her Immaculate Conception, just as the human soul of Christ did not exist until His Incarnation. There is no preconception Mary vice the pre-Incarnate Logos.

I don't often exercise this muscle, so perhaps now is a good time.  What do you mean by "just as" "the human soul of Christ did not exist until his Incarnation"?  It sounds as though you are making an equal comparison or sorts.  Within the context of things being a mystery, are you saying that Our Lady and Our Lord share an comparable mystery in this regard?  And, what exactly is the mystery regarding the existence of the Virgin Mary?  Is it perhaps that a legitimate part of her existed at creation "just as" you say Christ's human soul did not exist until such an such time? 

DZ 168 (3) Although, I say, in accordance with this confession this must piously be believed regarding the conception of our Lord, although it can in no wise be explained, the Eutychians assert that there is one nature, that is, the divine; and Nestorius none the less mentions a single [nature] , namely, the human; if we must maintain two against the Eutychians, because they draw out one, it follows that we should without doubt proclaim also in opposition to Nestorius who declares one, that not one, but rather two existed as a unity from His beginning, properly adding the human, contrary to Eutyches, who attempts to defend one, that is, the divine only, in order to show that the two, upon which that remarkable mystery rests, endure there; in opposition to Nestorius indeed, who similarly says one, namely, the human, we nevertheless substitute the divine, so that in like manner we hold that two against his one with a true division have existed in the plenitude of this mystery from the primordial effects of His union, and we refute both who chatter in a different way of single[natures], not each of them in regard to one only, but both in respect to the abiding possession of two natures: to wit, the human and divine, united from His beginning without any confusion or defect.
 
(4) For although one and the same person is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole God man and the whole man God, and whatever there is of humanity, the God man makes his own, and whatever there is of God, the man God possesses, nevertheless, granted that this remains a mystery and cannot be explained in any degree, thus the whole man continues to be what God is, [as?] the whole God continues to be whatever man is . . . *


I frankly have no idea how you could draw from what I wrote that I was asserting any of the things you questioned. You’re overthinking what I wrote.

Simply put, Mary did not exist until her conception. If such were the case (pre-existence) then she would not be a descendent of Adam, nor would Christ in his human nature (actually, I’d argue that would make them both not human, if we understand Adam as the first man — something foundational to all theology as concerns mankind), etc. It basically makes the Incarnation... not the Incarnation. It also makes the Immaculate Conception nothing of the sort, since once cannot be preserved from what isn’t yet in existence. It would basically be, I dunno, genetic docetism, or something, as causally traced from Mary to Christ.

Note, though, that making distinctions about the divine and human nature of Christ in order to understand both is not the same as embracing the heresy of Nestorianism. And it is not my intention to do so.

I am not accusing you of being a Nestorian.  But, you were the one who chose to say Christ's human soul didn't exist at some time.  Who uses that language?  The only concept that I could gather you might be speaking to is the distinction between Christ's two natures, so I posted some relevant information.  Because, other than that, I have never heard about a Christ's "human soul" distinction having not existed. 

As far as a "simply put" answer, the devil is in the details.  Church teaching acknowledges that concerning Christ, many teachings are a mystery.  But, is Mary a parallel mystery?  Whether she is or isn't is not of importance.  Only the parallel is of importance.  And, that means details.  Forgive me for if I am "over thinking" this.  The conversation demands it.   
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 11:00:01 PM
I found it!  It was in an Xavier post.  And, ironically enough, I now recall having read/heard this at some point in my novus ordo days over a decade ago.  It goes something like this.  The source of the angelic rebellion was(in part?) the existence of the Virgin Mary.  Satan perceived that God's plan was to elevate a woman, in this case the Virgin Mary, to a height or stature greater than that of the angels.  And, for this, Satan rebelled.  This is the beginning.  Follow it to its end.  What is the end?  If the end is an error, what does that make of the beginning?

Here is Xavier's post referencing where it comes from. 

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/mystical/city.shtml In that book, it is also explained that one of the reasons why the fallen Angels were expelled from Heaven, and became an apostate host, was their rebellious opposition to, the commandments of God, the Incarnation of Christ, and the supreme veneration of hyperdulia they were to give the Mother of God, which they refused to do. These there were the 3 tests God gave them, as He gave Adam and Eve one simple test. They rebelled against Him, and the rest is history. They absolutely hated to adore the Incarnate Christ, and supremely revere His Immaculate Mother. That's where all suffering in the universe really began. That evil will is what it goes back to.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 17, 2020, 11:26:08 PM
Such an idea of the rebellion is a twisting of Gen. 3:15 - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed."  The key words here are "I will", which references God and the future tense, as opposed to Satan and the past tense.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Sempronius on May 18, 2020, 01:15:57 AM
When Gardener wrote ”the human soul of Christ”, it triggered the inner inquisitor in me  :P
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: John Lamb on May 18, 2020, 04:08:40 AM
Mary didn't exist as a conscious human person at the beginning of time, obviously. She was born in time to Sts Joachim and Anne. Mary as an idea in the mind of God, however, has always existed. In fact, the same could be said of each of us: we're all eternal in a certain mystical sense. But the difference between us and Mary, however, is that while each of us has a particular mission and a unique identity in the mind of God from all eternity, Mary's mission as Mother of God and identity as the archetype of divine Wisdom means that the "role", so to speak, that she plays in God's mind means that she was actively a part of everything God worked and created in the beginning, though obviously in a mediate and instrumental way. The same could be said of each of us: God had us in mind when he was creating heaven and earth, the stars, etc. But Mary plays such a preeminent role in humanity and creation that she can be uniquely said to be with God in the beginning. That's why Michelangelo paints God the Father with the woman at His side in creating, the woman representing Sophia (divine Wisdom) of which Mary is the archetypal expression.

Look up the Russian orthodox school of thought "Sophiology".
http://ivashek.com/en/texts/554-sophia-the-wisdom-of-god#Gl1
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 18, 2020, 11:14:10 AM
According to Ven. Agreda, the God revealed to the Angels the mystery of the Hypostatic Union i.e. The proposed union of God with a creature; Lucifer, perceiving himself to be the most exalted of all creatures, thought that this privilege should belong to himself; when he learned that the union would take place with a human nature; much inferior to his own; he began to balk; and when he learned that it would take place through the mediation of a woman; and that the angels would serve both the Word incarnate and His mother; he was filled with fury and raised the cry: "I will not serve".
Msgr. Gaume in his "Treatise on the Holy Ghost"; describes the fall of the wicked angels arriving at similar conclusions, through the study of Sacred Scripture.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 19, 2020, 01:09:41 PM
I was listening to a current sunday sermon yesterday, and the priest just so happened to preach about this subject.  He said the teaching is not dogma, but it is taught by Thomas Aquinas, and therefore the priest confesses it.  And, it is basically that God revealed the incarnation to all the angels, and that resulted in the rebellion. 

However, where is this found in scripture?  And, how can there be grave offense/sin necessitating a savior/messiah/incarnation without a prior Satan/angelic rebellion?  It is putting the cart before the horse. 

Who was the first catholic figure to teach this doctrine in its entirety? 
 
God did punish the serpent as a result of the fall.  That is quite a revealing bit of information.  Meaning, the cause of the fall might not be God putting a cart before a horse, but instead the near occasional circumstance of Eve and a Serpent.  After which God takes action to prevent such from happening in the future.  The serpent is sentenced to licking the earth all its days.  As a result, the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil is no longer objectively a temptation.  Objective, because Satan is banned from heaven for all eternity.  Such sentence is not subject to change.  Without a punishment of the serpent, an objective temptation would remain.  Subjectively, with Adam and Eve being fallen, it is.  But objectively, it is no longer.  For the serpent has been punished.  God did not punish the Tree.  God punished the serpent.  God punished Eve.  And, God punished Adam. 

A serpent looks a bit like lightning as well, if we are in the mood to entertain a similarity.  "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven".
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 19, 2020, 09:05:02 PM
Msgr. Gaume used two sources that I can remember ( will have to dig up his book):
Apocalypse 12. 1-4 which describes the fall of Lucifer and the rebellious angels, after the appearance of the Woman clothed with the sun and being with child.
John 8. 44; describing Satan as a "murderer from the beginning"; because (said Msgr. Gaume) as soon as Satan learned of the Hypostatic union with a man, he desired to kill this man; and conceived a deadly hatred for the whole human race because of envy. 
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 19, 2020, 11:28:21 PM
Msgr. Gaume used two sources that I can remember ( will have to dig up his book):
Apocalypse 12. 1-4 which describes the fall of Lucifer and the rebellious angels, after the appearance of the Woman clothed with the sun and being with child.
John 8. 44; describing Satan as a "murderer from the beginning"; because (said Msgr. Gaume) as soon as Satan learned of the Hypostatic union with a man, he desired to kill this man; and conceived a deadly hatred for the whole human race because of envy.
There is plenty surrounding that apocalypse reference to suggest at the very least that it is referring to an event/battle 2000 years ago, as opposed to an event/battle around(Before or during) the time of Adam and Eve.  In John 8 I think the key is the meaning of Murderer from "the beginning"?  "From" vs "in" is also significant.  Look at it this way.  "From the beginning was the word", verses "in the beginning was the word".  There is a big difference. 

"In the beginning was the Word".  Christ in a real enough sense precedes adam and eve, because he is God eternal.  But, from the beginning Satan is characterized as a murderer from John 8.  That means satan must have one to murder.  And, that means timeline-wise it would have to regard ADam and Eve..  You can't murder a plant or animal, and Christ was not murdered in the beginning.  Christ was killed 2000 years ago.

So, what does that leave us?  It leaves us as that same apocolypse chapter says, with the dragon as "that old serpent", who is called the devil.  Apocalypse's use of the word old indicates a past tense, meaning the dragon vs the Sun Lady/Virgin Mary event is not a reference to the initial battle(because that same dragon is that "old" serpent), despite referencing the tail of a dragon casting down a third of the angels and St. Michael.  Such is more an acknowledgement of constant state of affairs.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 21, 2020, 09:16:16 AM
Below is pasted Apocalypse Ch. 12.  And, I think it is heretical to believe it is a reference to before the fall of adam and eve.  Because, there is no way one can believe that without also by necessity placing the virgin mary substantially at the scene.  And, that is heresy.  Either that, or it is fantasy, which is blasphemous to say, as it is inspired by the Holy Ghost as a result of being I the bible.  It is also heresy to say that Christ, the second person of the holy trinity, was not "in the beginning" from all eternity, who is referenced albiet as "child" in Apocolypse ch. 12.  What is the name of that book by Msgr. Gaume?

[1] And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: [2] And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. [3] And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his heads seven diadems: [4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. [5] And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

(commentary from the link) "A woman": The church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet: and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions."

[6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. [7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: [8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. [10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.
[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. [12] Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. [13] And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: [14] And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. [15] And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
[16] And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. [17] And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. [18] And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 21, 2020, 04:37:17 PM
Christ's Incarnation could have been revealed in a vision to the angels in the same manner as it was revealed to St. John in the Apocalypse. The Virgin wasn't present in that vision and neither was Our Lord; so there is no heresy.
The Name of Msgr. Gaume's book is "Traite du Saint Esprit" (2 volumes); https://www.amazon.com/Trait%C3%A9-Saint-Esprit-II-Annot%C3%A9-French-ebook/dp/B01HSERBFC
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 21, 2020, 04:42:36 PM
Phillip G.
Quote
"In the beginning was the Word".  Christ in a real enough sense precedes adam and eve, because he is God eternal.  But, from the beginning Satan is characterized as a murderer from John 8.  That means satan must have one to murder.  And, that means timeline-wise it would have to regard ADam and Eve..  You can't murder a plant or animal, and Christ was not murdered in the beginning.  Christ was killed 2000 years ago.
Satan upon seeing the vision of the Hypostatic Union, already conceived in his mind the desire to kill the Word Incarnate; he did not need Him to be present. The same as a man who conceived a deadly hatred for another who is not at that moment present; but plans to execute them when the first opportunity arises; is already guilty of the sin of murder. 
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 21, 2020, 11:02:01 PM
Phillip G.
Quote
"In the beginning was the Word".  Christ in a real enough sense precedes adam and eve, because he is God eternal.  But, from the beginning Satan is characterized as a murderer from John 8.  That means satan must have one to murder.  And, that means timeline-wise it would have to regard ADam and Eve..  You can't murder a plant or animal, and Christ was not murdered in the beginning.  Christ was killed 2000 years ago.
Satan upon seeing the vision of the Hypostatic Union, already conceived in his mind the desire to kill the Word Incarnate; he did not need Him to be present. The same as a man who conceived a deadly hatred for another who is not at that moment present; but plans to execute them when the first opportunity arises; is already guilty of the sin of murder.

Mt. ch. 15,19 - "for from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies".

Only a Thomist would conclude that conceiving a murderous thought in one's mind is tantamount to murder.  And, that is because Aquinas erroneously considered the mind of man essentially untouched by original sin.  As a result, such a thought itself becomes vicious/fatefully murderous.  It is for this reason that Aquinas endorses the death penalty for heresy.  For him, who idolizes the male mind, male intellectual deficiency is vicious.  Aquinas may very well be the author of this theory you speak of as well, that the angels received a vision, and that resulted in the fall.  It is false, and I will demonstrate it.

Being that angels are pure spirits with intellects but lack a carnal heart and therefore emotion, I argue that the reverse is the case.  Satan would have to actually witness God's plan in the flesh in order to be tempted.  And, that makes for heresy really quick for those who think the virgin mary/the incarnate Christ were the subject matter.

Think of males and females.  Males intellect is their greatest asset, females their heart/emotions.  It is females who are tempted by cults/false religions/intellectual matters.  It is males who are tempted by the flesh/sexual/emotional matters.  With angels, who have a superior intellect, their temptation must come in the form of flesh, and from without, being their lack of flesh.  A vision is no temptation for an angel.  And, that is what I argued earlier via Eve and the serpent.  And, that is why it was necessary to punish the serpent, which did occur.  Think "wise as serpents, simple as doves". 

Consider Gnenesis 19,1-8 - Two angels went into Sodom, and Lot beseeched them to stay in his house.  That night the sodomites came to the house and demanded to "know them".  Lot beseeched them to not "commit this evil".   Who were the sodomites?  The sodomites were a thoroughly sinful carnal people.  Lot considered giving his two daughters(females who are by nature more natural/carnal/emotional) the lesser evil.  The test of the angels is carnal, not spiritual/visual. 

Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 22, 2020, 04:29:28 PM
Phillip G. Stated:
Quote
Only a Thomist would conclude that conceiving a murderous thought in one's mind is tantamount to murder.
Its Our Lord Himself that gave us this truth:
Matt. 5. 21:
Quote
[21] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Our Lord condemns to Hell, not only those who actually commit murder, but those who give way to a murderous hatred: 
 From the "Great Commentary" of Cornelius A Lapide (where he gathers all of the commentaries of the Church Fathers for each verse of the Bible):
Quote
Observe, anger is the thirst for vengeance, and is itself a mortal sin if it deliberately contrive, or wish for, any serious evil of body, or goods, or reputation of one’s neighbour, or rejoice in such evils, even though he deserve them, for he who is angry rejoices in them not as fruits of justice but of revenge...Shall be in danger of the judgment. Judgment here is to be taken in a somewhat different sense from that in which it occurs just above, Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. For there the human tribunal by which men were condemned to death for murder is meant; but here is understood the Divine judgment, which judges and condemns venial anger to temporal punishment, such as purgatory, but deadly anger to eternal punishment, i.e., to hell.
Quote
Matt. 5. 28:  But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
From the "Great Commentary" of Cornelius A Lapide on verse 28:
Quote
Ver. 27 and 28.—Ye have heard, &c. . . to lust after her—that is, with the design and object of indulging sinful passion with her—hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. Because by adultery he hath already corrupted her in his mind, and therefore before God, who beholds the heart, he is an adulterer, and as an adulterer he will be punished by Him.Christ passes from anger to concupiscence, because these two passions have the greatest influence over men. And as He explained the commandment, Thou shall nor kill, to forbid anger, so He here explains Thou shall not commit adultery to forbid concupiscence.
Just as Our Lord condemns those not only those who commit adultery, but those who even consent to it in their heart. This is why He said elsewhere that it isn't what goes into the mouth of a man that defiles him, but that which comes out of him; meaning man's heart: Matt. 15.11:
Quote
[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
When the disciples asked Our Lord to explain this saying the told them the following:
Quote
[18] But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. [19] For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. [20] These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.
And the Challoner commentary:
Quote
[11] "Not that which goeth into": No uncleanness in meat, nor any dirt contracted by eating it with unwashed hands, can defile the soul: but sin alone; or a disobedience of the heart to the ordinance and will of God....
And the Great Commentary of A. Lapide:
Quote
Proceed evil thoughts, &c. As from a fountain water bursts forth, so from the heart i.e., from the will, when it is depraved by luxury, or imbued with anger, there flow out evil thoughts of lust, or revenge. They burst forth in the mouth, by means of speech: and from the mouth they break out into deeds, when we carry our words into action.These are the thing whisk defile a man, &c. This is the conclusion, setting forth the scope and object of the parable, which is to shew that neither unclean hands, nor unclean or unwashed food defile men but an impure and depraved will alone. From hence it is plain that the Scribes thought that the unclean or unwashed food itself defiled the soul of the eater, as I have said on the second and third verses...
Therefore it is the evil determination of the will which causes man to commit sin, even before he does the deed. 
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 22, 2020, 04:39:53 PM
Philip G. Stated:
Quote
It is for this reason that Aquinas endorses the death penalty for heresy. 
St. Thomas endorses the death penalty for heresy, because it is a greater crime to kill the soul, through the sin of heresy than it is to kill the body, through murder; for the murdered person may save his soul, but the heretic will be condemned to Hell for all eternity. St. Thomas Summa II-II Q.11 A-3:
Quote
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death
on the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 22, 2020, 04:43:29 PM
Phillip G. stated:
Quote
The test of the angels is carnal, not spiritual/visual.
No the Angels do not have any material body or passions to tempt them carnally; they are pure intellectual and spiritual creatures; the Fathers of the Church all agree that the temptation that caused the Angels to fall was an intellectual one. I will translated the relevant material from Msgr. Gaume's book a little latter.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 22, 2020, 06:16:55 PM
Michael Wilson - the angle by which I am arguing this is Mt 15,19.  "From the heart comes forth "evil thoughts", "murders".  It means that there is a pre existing condition.  And, it is that condition which condemns; it is that which may be regarded as the sin against the holy ghost. 

For those men who are guilty of willful murder, which is one of the four capital offenses, it not only demonstrates a use of mans intellect, but it demonstrates a quasi religious act.  And, that is why it is so condemnable.  It is an indication of the pre existing condition.  Willful murder, Sodomy, Defrauding the laborer, and oppression of the poor are all of this same character.  They are vehicles towards an end.  They are not the beginning.  For, that beginning belongs to satan/antichrist. 

If a man thinks murder in his mind, it is not that activity per say which has sealed his fate.  It does have to be carried out, and that is not a foregone conclusion.  There is the saying about those who "choke".  "Once a choker, always a choker."  With that said, Pride comes before a fall.  And, for man, pride is associated with the heart, not the mind.  "The law is written on the heart of man". 

Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Philip G. on May 22, 2020, 06:29:46 PM
Phillip G. stated:
Quote
The test of the angels is carnal, not spiritual/visual.
No the Angels do not have any material body or passions to tempt them carnally; they are pure intellectual and spiritual creatures; the Fathers of the Church all agree that the temptation that caused the Angels to fall was an intellectual one. I will translated the relevant material from Msgr. Gaume's book a little latter.

Lucifer once did have material which offered temptation.  It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Eve, Adam, and the serpent.  And, that is Angel singular.  The angel's plural who fell, fell as a result of the tail of lucifer.  Lucifer dragged down 1/3 of the angels.  A tail is very much an opposite instrument the intellect, in fact it is the rogue element, for no angel was created with a tail.  In sum, the fall of the angels was not exclusively a visionary/intellectual one, which is what your theory represents.  Lucifer was gifted with such knowledge being one of the highest of the angels.  The test came by way of carnal creation.  It was not a result of a vision of the incarnation or the virgin mary.  That is false doctrine.

Please translate the relevant material.  No rush.  I have enjoyed the debate. 
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: Michael Wilson on June 18, 2020, 11:18:34 AM
Phillip, I finally finished transcribing some of the material from Msgr. Gaume's book: "Traite du Saint Esprit":
Quote
Msgr. Gaume, Le Traite du Saint Esprit
Vol. 1, pgs. 44-45:
God being good in His essence, anything that He creates can be nothing but good. Given that some of the inhabitants of the spiritual world are wicked, and they were not so by their nature, it is necessary to conclude that they became wicked. Nobody becomes wicked except through their own fault. Every fault presupposes free will. The wicked angels therefore had free will and they abused this freedom. What therefore was the nature of this test that they voluntarily failed? If reason allows us to arrive at this point, only revelation is able to explain its nature. Under the danger of falling into a gross error, it is necessary to consult God Himself for the true answer, who was the author of the test and the witness of its results. Here is what the “ancient of days’’ confided to His most closest confidant: “there was a great battle in Heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels (Apoc. XII. 7). These few words enclose a treasury of light. Here, and only here, is the historic origin of evil.
To divide heaven into two irreconcilable camps, to drag into the abyss one third of the Angels, and to assure the eternal happiness of the rest; of necessity it involves the a disputed truth connected to a fundamental dogma. (Apoc. XII. 4) ….The Angels comprehend perfectly in the details and in the composite all of the truths in the natural order; that is those that are under the sphere of their native intellect. An Angel is a pure intellect. His understanding is always in act, never in potency; in other words the Angel;  unlike man who has a potency to known something; he actually knows. The fathers of the Church, and the theologians explain that for an Angel to actually know something, they do not need to seek, to reason, neither to compose or divide; they simply look at themselves, and they see. The reason for this is that from the first instant of their creation, they possessed all their natural perfection and all the intelligible species, or representations through which they could see all the truths that they could know naturally. Their understanding is like a perfectly pure mirror, in which are reflected and impressed all the rays of the sun of truth, without shadow, diminution or augmentation.
Since the Angels from the first instant of their creation had a perfect knowledge of all the truths of the natural order, their trial was necessarily to be based on an object of the supernatural order, which was inaccessible to the native forces of their natural understanding, these truths are only known to them through revelation. The supernatural beatific knowledge of the Angels, is the means through which they see the Word and everything in the Word. By this vision they come to know the mysteries of grace; not all of them, and not all equally, but in the degree that God is pleased to reveal them to them.
We see therefore that the heaven in which the combat of the Angels took place, was not in that of the truths of the natural order, neither in that of the Beatific Vision; for the Angels had not yet merited this reward; rather it took place in the heaven of supernatural truths.
In what did this trial consist of? Evidently, a truth of the supernatural order that the Angels did not yet have a knowledge of but which they had to assent to. To be meritorious, this acceptance had to be difficult. It therefore had to be a mystery that to their eyes seemed to conflict with their reason, to take away from their excellence and overshadow their glory. To humbly assent to this mystery based on God’s word, to adore it, in-spite its obscurities and the repugnance it caused their nature, to finally see it, after having believed in it; such was the trial of the Angels.
In the counsels of God, this act of adoration, which implies and act of love and of faith, was decisive for the Angels, in the same way as  a similar act was for Adam and as it is for each one of us: “Whoever shall not believe, shall be condemned”. (Mark XVI, 16).
The dogma to be believed was barely proposed when one of the most brilliant Archangels, Lucifer, raised the cry of revolt: “  [13] And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. [14] I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. (Is. 14. 13-14). One third of the Angels proclaimed: “We protest” (this was the origin of Protestantism).
The Dogma that gave rise to the division in the Supernatural World.
“Decreed from all eternity, the dogma of the Incarnation of the Word was at the chosen time, revealed to the Angels for their assent and adoration. Some humbly accepted the superiority of the state created for a man, while others, those that revolted against this superiority and rejected the divine counsel.
The order willed by the divine Wisdom, made of its first decrees the most exalted, the most approaching to itself and as a consequence the most worthy of its love: Thus the Hypostatic Union of the Eternal Word to a human nature, in a way that in this being there would be but one person; was to be the first link that was to unite the Eternal God with the creatures that would appear by His will in the  order of creation.  As a consequence of this decree, necessarily flows that of the Blessed Virgin Mary, elevated to a superior disposition of Grace to a sublime degree; which would surpass in dignity and beauty all other creatures, to such an extent as to render her worthy to become the Mother of the Incarnate Word. As such in the Divine dispositions, she was to be the second link that would unite created natures to the uncreated omnipotence. 
A great many illustrious doctors of the Church are in agreement on this point. There are three indisputable propositions that illustrate its fitness:  The mystery of the Incarnation was the trial of the Angels if 1. They had knowledge of this mystery. 2. If this mystery had the nature to injure their pride and excite their jealousy.  3.  The Incarnate word is the unique object of hatred of Satan and his angels.
Thus St. Thomas, Suarez and Catherinus...If we listen to Suarez by whose mouth the whole school speaks according to Bossouet: “If is necessary to hold as extremely probable the opinion that it was the desire of the Hypostatic Union, which was the sin of pride, committed by Lucifer; thus rendering him from the beginning the mortal enemy of Jesus Christ.”
Catharinus, one of the glories of the Council of Trent, holds the same opinion. Along with other commentators he explains the following text of Saint Paul:  (He. 1.6) And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.”
 Why the word “again”, a second time? Because the Eternal Father  had already introduced His Son into the world, when in the beginning He proposed the mystery of the Incarnation to the Angels for their adoration. He introduced Him a second time, when He sent Him to be incarnated in the Blessed Virgin Mary. At the first introduction or revelation, Lucifer and his angels refused to give to Jesus Christ their adoration and submission. This was their sin. Following the common teaching of the Fathers, the devil sinned by envy against mankind; and it is probable that he sinned before the creation of the first man.  It is most probable that the devil sinned by envy against the dignity that he saw human nature being raised to, by the Incarnation.
Title: Re: Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation
Post by: aquinas138 on June 18, 2020, 11:59:10 AM
However, where is this found in scripture?  And, how can there be grave offense/sin necessitating a savior/messiah/incarnation without a prior Satan/angelic rebellion?  It is putting the cart before the horse.

I'm not sure the idea is scriptural, but it may have some connection with the idea in the Jewish apocryphal text The Life of Adam and Eve that God commanded Lucifer to venerate the newly-created Adam; his refusal was the occasion of his expulsion from Heaven. This apocryphon was popular among Christians, and is known in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions; such an array of languages indicates ongoing, widespread popularity among Christians of various confessions. I don't think it's a stretch to see such an idea developing in popular piety from Satan refusing to venerate Adam to Satan refusing to venerate the Second Adam.