Virgin Mary at the Beginning/Creation

[Philip G.]

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?

[Gardener]

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.

[Philip G.]

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.

[Philip G.]

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 . . . *

[Philip G.]

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". 

[Gardener]

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.

[Philip G.]

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.   

[Philip G.]

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.

[Philip G.]

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.

[Sempronius]

When Gardener wrote ”the human soul of Christ”, it triggered the inner inquisitor in me 

[John Lamb]

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

[Michael Wilson]

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.

[Philip G.]

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".

[Michael Wilson]

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. 

[Philip G.]

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.