I believed erroneously that this fanciful theory of the Scotists and supported by the Faith Movement would play no more part on this blog, concerning the Incarnation of the Logos irrespective if man had sinned or not. Having been 'assured' that their position is more than pure unjustified speculation about a hypothetical situation, but rather concerns the eternal plan of God, which they dare to presume to have knowledge of even thought it has not been publicly revealed to man, I must write more. It is my plan now to critique some articles written by the Faith Movement's founder, Fr. Edward Holloway to highlight certain fallacies and mistakes in his thinking on this question, yet extracting what is truly good about some of his beliefs.
I take the first article titled, 'The Son of Man: A Meditation Upon Psalm 8' which was the editorial in their magazine for July/August 1983.
In a recent discussion, where my interlocutor was visibly annoyed by my intransigence, it was mentioned that matter was not superfluous in the plan of God, and Holloway states, 'for matter is not meaningless if it too can be brought near to the Divine through the flesh of the Word made flesh'. After all 'Christ, the Eternal Word of the Father, holds the primacy over all things, because in Him they were all decreed and created. In Him they all cohere together in unity like a great equation of life and being'. However pious this sounds, and it certainly comes from the Sacred Scriptures, especially from Saint Paul's letter to the Ephesians, yet there is a fundamental problem with his application of it. In Hebrews 1:2, it is stated that through Jesus Christ, God created the universe. Now, we know that the initial act of creation must occur with time and not in time, consequently there is no before or after with God, Who abides in eternal bliss in the ever-present now Who sees all things at a glance. Therefore when it states that the cosmos was created through Jesus Christ, it can only mean through the Word (Who before the Incarnation in time, was pure spirit), who is the same Person Who descended to earth as Jesus Christ according to His assumed humanity. It refers to the hypostasis, the subsistent reality of the Second Person, as through Whom all things were made. Furthermore, as God the Eternal Father knows Himself and accordingly His effects through the Word, it is through that same Word that man comes to know God. As this eternally existing Logos, along with the Father and the Spirit, He Who Is, man can come to know God intimately, passing to the stage of perfection steadily. If man had overcome the trial of Satan in the Garden, man's love for God would have been manifested, even though in a wonderful condition, he would have joyfully and gratefully accepted his state under God in justice. I believe it was 'necessary' for a trial to be placed before man. This was certainly fitting and God the Just One permitted Satan, who exists still under the sway of the Logos to tempt our first parents. It is according to the nature of man to be man.
Along with Saint Anselm of Canterbury, I state that the only barrier to entry into Heaven and the Blessed Vision of the divine essence is our state of sin. He writes, 'The remission of sins, therefore, is something absolutely necessary for man, so that he may arrive at blessed happiness'. Anything else that the Christ came for such as to teach, or to rule concern our absolution from sin, while correcting our waywardness, illuminating our darkened intellect, and healing our vitiated will, is connected with our fall from the original position of union (yet short of that hoped for in eternity) with God.
Let us return to his statement that matter is not trivial in the creation of God, as he rightly notes that man is a substantial unity of body and soul. It is of the Faith that man's corporal nature will not simply be discarded as a mistake or an irretrievable or failed experiment on the part of God. At the end of time, the same flesh will take on a spiritual quality to reflect and mirror the soul which will shine through in an unspeakable fashion and at the same time, the flesh will find its fulfilment.
To a priest yesterday evening I stated that the Incarnation without sin, although a lovely thought, would be unnecessary, as there nothing inadequate in the creation of the first man. Certainly a movement is required with respect to man, a progress in union with God, but that is according to his nature although a divine gift. When I say 'according to his nature', I refer not to the inherent capability of man who has a right to it, but rather as God is His only end and fulfilment, for Whom he was only created. Even though the Word became flesh to save that which was lost, no ontological change can occur on the part of man. The real dialectic that Father emphasised is not between matter and spirit (or matter/spirit versus pure spirit, in the case of man and the angels) but rather between created and uncreated. However, this is, I believe, a further problem for their position, as it would place, rightly, the angels on the side of man. Would it not be necessary for God, to unite Himself with an angelic nature in order to divinise it? To raise it up further into the life of God? Man may be unique on earth as being made in the image of God, although his likeness to the divine has been defaced, however it is the angels that contain the most affinity to God, with vastly superior intelligences to man. Holloway and his current followers would have further difficulty if they were to accept the Thomist view that the each angel must be its own species as there can no be material differences between them. Even though the angels are most like God, there was an opportunity for them to undergo a movement or the will, some instance of decision to be made before experiences the Beatific Vision, which is incomprehensible for us in this valley of tears. The angel is on the side of creation. Although pure spirit, there is a insurmountable gulf between it and God, therefore it follows that it would be 'fitting' for the divine to unite Himself in some way with the angelic nature. Yet, Holloway states that they 'are divinised by the communion with their totally spiritual natures of the knowledge of God and love of God. The totality of God's gift of being, God's spiritual being , is poured upon the angels directly', this I can consent to. However, next he writes, 'Pure Spirit upon pure spirits. There is no matter in between to hinder the direct work of God, so to say', and this is another area where his errors lie. As I have previously noted, the angels have a closer affinity to God as spirits, yet and crucially so, the divine nature of God is of a fundamentally different 'quality' to that of these creatures. Before God, they are not even worth a grain of sand.
So what is the purpose of matter if it did not need to be 'divinised'? Simply for it to be matter created good in essence by the good God, it in fact remains so, as created, even when assumed by the Descent of the Logos. There is no confusion as Chalcedon states in the hypostatic union. It is not swallowed up or consumed, but remains matter and in that sense, infinitely inferior to the divine nature that assumes it.
On a side note, with Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, I must note that the matter and spirit chosen from all eternity to be the flesh and soul of the Incarnate Christ was elected without on claim on their part. It was according to the mercy and goodness of God, Who had no obligation to elect man to salvation by sending His Son, that this particular matter and spirit, before the ages was chosen for the Deity to dwell bodily.
Matter was created through the Logos Who is the Archtype of all creation, visible and invisible. Matter is not at the far end of an emanation of the One which has no likeness whatsoever to the pure spirit of God. Our corporal nature is the physical manifestation of the interior and essential goodness and beauty of God. It is through this condition that we are capable of relating to others and approaching them. Through the harmony of soul and flesh if man had not fallen, it would have been taken up with the latter to the divine communion of life and love of the Holy Trinity.
*In a later article I wish to develop this point, by further considering their arguments*
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment