Supralapsarianism in Post Vatican II RCC? The Franciscan Thesis, The Incarnation, Further Exaltation of Mary, Infallible Decrees.......

[Papa Smurf]

Greetings Everyone I'm not quite sure what to make of all of this (though I admit to being both interested and stunned by some of it, especially the focus on Mary and the idea that is put forth about the Incarnation). So, what do all of you think of it (generally .. and specifically, concerning the text in bold)? (Just FYI, I copied this from the Catholic board on a different Christian forum and brought it here so that we could discuss it, something that I'm not supposed to do over there, being a Protestant)

The two links below are short and informative if you'd care to check them out.

The Absolute Primacy of the Incarnation is the view that Christ’s Incarnation was planned to occur with or without Adam’s sins and the entire creation was created in view to Christ himself. This contrasts with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that Christ’s Incarnation was due to the fact that Adam sinned from which is derived the necessary fault sung in the Easter Liturgy.​

​

Vatican II and the Franciscan Thesis​

The Franciscan Thesis is that Mary was predestined to be the Mother of God in one and the same decree with Christ’s Incarnation and the Absolute Primacy of the Incarnation. The absolute primacy o…​

​

~Vatican II and the Franciscan Thesis​

​

The Franciscan Thesis maintains that the primary motive of the Incarnation is to glorify the triune God in the person of Jesus Christ: though Christ atones for human sins, His coming isn't relative to our need for redemption but rather has an absolute primacy.​

​

~https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00469.x​

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David

 

[Carbon]

Greetings Everyone I'm not quite sure what to make of all of this (though I admit to being both interested and stunned by some of it, especially the focus on Mary and the idea that is put forth about the Incarnation). So, what do all of you think of it (generally .. and specifically, concerning the text in bold)? (Just FYI, I copied this from the Catholic board on a different Christian forum and brought it here so that we could discuss it, something that I'm not supposed to do over there, being a Protestant)

The two links below are short and informative if you'd care to check them out.

The Absolute Primacy of the Incarnation is the view that Christ’s Incarnation was planned to occur with or without Adam’s sins and the entire creation was created in view to Christ himself. This contrasts with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that Christ’s Incarnation was due to the fact that Adam sinned from which is derived the necessary fault sung in the Easter Liturgy.​

​

​

The Franciscan Thesis maintains that the primary motive of the Incarnation is to glorify the triune God in the person of Jesus Christ: though Christ atones for human sins, His coming isn't relative to our need for redemption but rather has an absolute primacy.​

​

~https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00469.x​

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David

Mary was predestined to be the Mother of God?
Just about every forum I have been on really emphasizes Mary. I think she is the main God in their religion, as everything seems built around her. What would they do without her?

 

[Papa Smurf]

Mary was predestined to be the Mother of God?
Just about every forum I have been on really emphasizes Mary.

Hello Brother, the Library of the Fathers details some of the cult-like behavior that people were demonstrating towards Mary while she was still alive, and it's gotten far worse over the years. It seems that each passing year brings a new or increased heresy of some kind concerning her in the RCC.

For instance, I happened upon a special service at a Basilica in St. Louis years ago. There was a statue of Mary that I believe was being taken from Basilica to Basilica for people to see as it was purported to "cry" at times. I'd always wondered why the statue of Mary cried (or at least appeared to do so, at times ... it did not do so that day), until I saw this service and, particularly, what happened after the service was over (as the entire congregation pressed in to see the statue, reaching their arms towards the statue while praying and sobbing).

It seemed to me that if it was crying (this statue of Mary) that it was surely crying for the people who attended the service, all whose focus and worship was clearly and wholly aimed at Mary, instead of towards her Son.

I think she is the main God in their religion, as everything seems built around her.

My Catholic friends tell me that's not what's going on, even though it clearly looks like it is. They also tell me that they aren't bowing down and worshipping a statue, but the woman who the statue represents.

The thing is, isn't that exactly what the people of Israel believed that they were doing when they built and worshipped the Golden Calf (that they were worshipping the God, YHWH, who they believed it represented), and yet, they found themselves in some VERY hot water nevertheless.

What would they do without her?

I'm not really sure, but they'd certainly have a lot of time on their hands to figure it out

God bless you!!

--David

 

[Papa Smurf]

The Absolute Primacy of the Incarnation is the view that Christ’s Incarnation was planned to occur with or without Adam’s sins and the entire creation was created in view to Christ himself. This contrasts with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that Christ’s Incarnation was due to the fact that Adam sinned from which is derived the necessary fault sung in the Easter Liturgy.​

My first question (about the text above in bold) is why

The Incarnation was absolutely necessary BECAUSE Adam sinned, yes? If he had not, sin and death would have never entered our realm, and the Earth would have continued to be the paradise that it began as with all of us living in it with God.

No sin, no death, no need for redemption.

So, why would The Franciscan Thesis want us to believe otherwise?

Is it possible that this Franciscan Thesis idea is about Mary, alone After all, no need for redemption would mean no need for the Incarnation, which would also mean no need for Mary (as the mother of our Redeemer).

I may be WAY off track here (and I certainly hope that I am ).

Thoughts?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf (David)

 

[Papa Smurf]

Just about every forum I have been on really emphasizes Mary. I think she is the main God in their religion, as everything seems built around her. What would they do without her?

Hello Brother, you are correct, what would they do w/o her

I think that their art tells part of the story, which always seems to be about His need ~OR~ our need for Mary (He is most often depicted as a helpless babe in His mother's arms, as dead or as dying on the Cross, or dead in His mother's arms after He was taken down from the Cross, or, as the powerful, merciless Judge at the end of the age, coming to condemn sinner and saint alike at the Great White Throne.

So this, the Judgment at the end of the age, that is, is when we REALLY need Mary to step up and advocate on our behalf apparently (as our mediatrix), before the One who the Bible refers to as our ~ONLY~ Mediator/Advocate, Redeemer and Savior .. e.g. Isaiah 43:11; 1 Timothy 2:15.

Then there is the Bible to consider, which teaches exactly what we do about Mary, W/O all of Rome's many Marian additions (or Marianisms).

Another odd thing is the Bible's absolute silence concerning her after Acts 1:14. If she is even a tenth as important as RCC doctrine makes her out to be, then why is she never referred to again in the Bible (IOW, while the 1st Century church never mentions her again in the Bible, on the one hand, the RCC of today seems all but incapable of having a discussion that does not include her, in some special or extraordinary way, on the other).

So, what's up with that

It should be noted, of course, that the Library of the Fathers does speak of her, of some of what the rest of her life was like (it's made pretty clear in the ECF that the Cult of Mary worship began while she was still alive). It also speaks of her many INCREDIBLE exploits too, like when she supposedly went to Hell and commanded the Father to release all of the prisoners who remain there, IOW, all who were judged, condemned and consigned to the Lake of Fire by the Lord Jesus at the GWT (I do not believe that the RCC officially holds that latter ECF teaching above as true, fortunately).

So again, does it not seem more than just odd to you that the NT, from Acts 1:15 to the end of the Book of Revelation, has NOTHING at all to say about her (if even a minutia of Rome's MANY teachings about her are actually true)

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf (David)

 

[makesends]

Greetings Everyone I'm not quite sure what to make of all of this (though I admit to being both interested and stunned by some of it, especially the focus on Mary and the idea that is put forth about the Incarnation). So, what do all of you think of it (generally .. and specifically, concerning the text in bold)? (Just FYI, I copied this from the Catholic board on a different Christian forum and brought it here so that we could discuss it, something that I'm not supposed to do over there, being a Protestant)

The two links below are short and informative if you'd care to check them out.

The Absolute Primacy of the Incarnation is the view that Christ’s Incarnation was planned to occur with or without Adam’s sins and the entire creation was created in view to Christ himself. This contrasts with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that Christ’s Incarnation was due to the fact that Adam sinned from which is derived the necessary fault sung in the Easter Liturgy.​

​

​

The Franciscan Thesis maintains that the primary motive of the Incarnation is to glorify the triune God in the person of Jesus Christ: though Christ atones for human sins, His coming isn't relative to our need for redemption but rather has an absolute primacy.​

​

~https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00469.x​

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David

My first question (about the text above in bold) is why

The Incarnation was absolutely necessary BECAUSE Adam sinned, yes? If he had not, sin and death would have never entered our realm, and the Earth would have continued to be the paradise that it began as with all of us living in it with God.

No sin, no death, no need for redemption.

So, why would The Franciscan Thesis want us to believe otherwise?

Is it possible that this Franciscan Thesis idea is about Mary, alone After all, no need for redemption would mean no need for the Incarnation, which would also mean no need for Mary (as the mother of our Redeemer).

I may be WAY off track here (and I certainly hope that I am ).

Thoughts?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf (David)

I still have a problem with the terminology of lapsarianism, as it speaks concerning the order in which God decreed (best as I can understand it so far). To me, that is a stupid, ignorant, question, putting temporal order to non-temporal God. But if we were to discuss whether one thing God decreed is logically necessary for the next to happen, that can be a sensible discussion.

Genesis 1 speaks in terms of perhaps an ordering of God's decrees. I really don't think of it that way, but simply that God said, "let there be...". Notice, for example, that it doesn't say, "And on the first day God said, 'Let there be light.', and there was light." What it says is that God said, and at the end of description of what resulted from him saying, 'Let there be light.", it says, "and there was evening and morning—the first day." So there, it is not saying that he did not speak it all at the same time. Off hand, I know of no other reference of that sort, concerning sequence of decree. (Nor, for that matter, even if it did speak in terms of a sequence of "God saying", as in, "speaking into existence", that it would prove that he spoke during the sequence and not before. To him, I doubt it makes any difference.

I assume you bring the term, 'lapsarianism', into this. I've never heard it used in Catholic terminology.

As it is obvious, (to me), that the one thing logically necessitates the other —for example, my making coffee today is a result of many other things, to include my being born many years ago— (again, "to me", I say), if Adam had not sinned, God would not have even created the universe, because he would have no reason to. That is to say, it is a bogus question. All things fall out precisely as they do because God decreed them to do so.

To my mind, God spoke the finished product into existence with a word. And this (temporal process) is how it came to be, all of it within the meaning and power of that word.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hello Brother (@makesends), to be honest, I don't remember what connection I saw or was attempting to make between "Supralapsarianism" and the topic of this thread, which is the Franciscan doctrine of the "Primacy" of the Incarnation, and (also/especially) their doctrine of the "Primacy" of His mother, as His mother

That said, I would like to discuss the topics of Supra/Infra/Sub-lapsarianism here, so I think that I'll start a thread about it so that we can do so (and after reading all of your thoughts above, I hope you'll join in ) For what it's worth, my first exposure to this topic happened when I read R. C.'s little book called, Chosen By God, where he (if memory serves) paints a pretty dark picture of the "Supra" position, darker than a number of others have expressed anyway, by seemingly joining it at the hip with Hyper-Calvinism, almost as if the two were a single doctrine (which is one of the things that I'd like to hear from others about here).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[makesends]

Hello Brother (@makesends), to be honest, I don't remember what connection I saw or was attempting to make between "Supralapsarianism" and the topic of this thread, which is the Franciscan doctrine of the "Primacy" of the Incarnation, and (also/especially) their doctrine of the "Primacy" of His mother, as His mother

That said, I would like to discuss the topics of Supra/Infra/Sub-lapsarianism here, so I think that I'll start a thread about it so that we can do so (and after reading all of your thoughts above, I hope you'll join in ) For what it's worth, my first exposure to this topic happened when I read R. C.'s little book called, Chosen By God, where he (if memory serves) paints a pretty dark picture of the "Supra" position, darker than a number of others have expressed anyway, by seemingly joining it at the hip with Hyper-Calvinism, almost as if the two were a single doctrine (which is one of the things that I'd like to hear from others about here).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

Thanks. I'd appreciate it if you'd link me when you start that thread, because I sometimes miss new threads.