As I once heard a priest put it, "Sin is inhuman."
Tom | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 2:45 pm | #

Adam and Eve were fully human before the fall. I thought the main point of the fall narrative was precisely to explain that sin was not in man's original human nature? God created man, and said it was good. Sin is something that came in and damaged true human nature (and we are all afflicted by this). Christ, coming as man without sin, would therefore be truly fully human.
c matt | 10.31.05 - 3:07 pm | #

Redemption/salvation not only offers humanity the opportunity for restoration to its pre-Fall state, it also goes infinitely further, to offer us the opportunity for glory (theosis, in eastern usage) that we would never have had before the Fall.

And, while Christ is the first fruit and pledge of this, Mary is the next.
Liam | 10.31.05 - 3:07 pm | #

Mary was the most fully human creature

Beautifully put.

God Bless
Chris Sullivan | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 3:18 pm | #

Thanks for the explanation, Mark. Now I understand.
Peg | 11.01.05 - 8:07 am | #

Redemption/salvation not only offers humanity the opportunity for restoration to its pre-Fall state, it also goes infinitely further, to offer us the opportunity for glory (theosis, in eastern usage) that we would never have had before the Fall.

No, theosis has always been the goal of mankind, even before the Fall. Many theologians, like St. Maximos Confessor, also held that the Incarnation of the Son would have played a role in our theosis, even had the Fall never occurred.

But you are absolutely correct that our goal is greater than restoration to our prelapsarian state!
pha | 11.01.05 - 11:59 am | #

If we agree that prior to Mary's conception God decided that she was never to be stained by original sin (since She was to be the mother of Our Lord, Jesus Christ)then I find it difficult to reconcile this truth with your describing her as the "most human" of all created beings saved by Christ.If perfect from the first moment of her existence was Christ's death necessary for her salvation? Please explain.
John J. Gilligan | 11.01.05 - 4:23 pm | #

John--

Mary was saved from sin the same way you and I are: by the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God.

The only difference is that in Mary's case, redemption was applied from the first moment of her existence, freeing her from the consequences of sin humans usually inherit. By the grace of God, she never committed any actual sins either.

Being free of both sin and the inherited consequences of sin, Mary, unlike you and me, is as truly human as a human being can possibly be. We are, unfortunately, less human than she (though becoming more human, by God's grace!). So Mary's the most human of all created beings saved by Christ.
pha | 11.01.05 - 5:51 pm | #

I don't know where the term "fully human" originated, but I have noticed it cropping up lately, and it bothers me. First, I thought that we are not only to be restored to our original unfallen human state and receive the beatific vision, but that our human state is to be elevated and glorified by not only seeing, but becoming true partakers of the divine life of God interiorly. We partake of the divine life of God now in the Holy Eucharist, but will do so fully in heaven. Second, the term "fully human" has a distressingly feel-good, new-age sound to it, like "self-actualization." For both these reasons, it could be misleading for people. Seems to me we've had enough self-centered, not God-centered, theology in recent decades. No expert here, just musing.
Aimee Milburn | 11.01.05 - 9:16 pm | #

Thank you for your kind reply to my question.I had never considered sinlessness and being the most human as one and the same. Easy to see once it has been so beautifully explained. It prompts a second and final question.

Since Mary's birth was prior to Christ's death and resurection and redemption through Christ was applied to her by God from the first moment of her existence, would it be appropriate to consider her redemption through the merits of her son, yet to be born, as being unique and anticipatory by God?
John J. Gilligan | 11.01.05 - 9:39 pm | #

"Since Mary's birth was prior to Christ's death and resurection and redemption through Christ was applied to her by God from the first moment of her existence, would it be appropriate to consider her redemption through the merits of her son, yet to be born, as being unique and anticipatory by God?" Yes, it's called "prevenient grace."
Aimee Milburn | 11.02.05 - 11:12 am | #

Thank you Aimee, but since the gates of heaven were not opened to mankind in general until Christ's resurrection had been accomplished would it not require something beyond "prevenient grace" to accomplish Mary's "Immaculate Conception"?
John J. Gilligan | 11.02.05 - 10:41 pm | #

Actually, no. Mary was saved by the redeeming grace of Christ, which was applied to her at the very moment of her conception. The term "prevenient" means anticipatory, coming before, preceeding.

In other words, the grace of Christ was applied to Mary backwards in time. This could happen because Christ, being God, is not confined to time, and his redeeming work applies to all people at all times.

Think of Moses and Elijah, who appear speaking with Christ at the Transfiguration and were obviously saved - yet Christ was still alive on earth. They were not in heaven yet as the gates had not yet been opened, nor were they saved at the moment of conception in the same manner as Mary, but the concept still applies. Those born before Christ's sacrifice can be saved too.

The special grace to given to Mary was not merely preservation from sinning, it was preservation from the stain of original sin itself. This was done for a very important reason: so that Christ from the moment of his conception would have a perfectly holy tabernacle to grow in. Mary is the new tabernacle. Think of the old tabernacle, and how serious God was about keeping it holy (2 Sam 6:07). If anyone touched it even by accident, they were struck dead.

If the old tabernacle, which didn't actually carry the presence of God, was so important, then the new tabernacle that does carry the actual physical presence of God would be even more important. Mary was created by God and preserved from original sin from the first moment for this reason, that God would have a holy and pure tabernacle to dwell in. And it was done by the grace of God, which flows from the mercy of God, for the sake of his Son and the salvation of souls.

This is also why the angel at the moment of Mary's conception called her "full of grace." It was an unusual salutation, and would be understood by the Jewish mind at that time to literally mean completely full of grace so as to be incapable of sin. If I remember correctly, it actually is this phrase that is the scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If she had not been born without sin, she could not have been "full of grace.

Well, I do run on. Hope this makes sense. Everyone, if I got anything wrong or left anything out, please correct me.
Aimee Milburn | 11.03.05 - 10:36 am | #

I need to make a modification to what I just said: "Incapable of sin" was a poor choice of words, as Mary still had free will. A better way of putting it would be, since she did not have the stain of original sin, she did not have the inclination to sin that others have, and so could use her God-given faculties to always choose the right way.

So, the Jewish mind would have understood that Mary, being full of grace, could not be so unless she had never sinned at all.
Anonymous | 11.03.05 - 10:50 am | #

Again, thank you Aimee for not only answering my question, but covering the topic so clearly and completely and to my mind correctly that all who read it will, like myself, recognize the complete understanding coupled with an obvious love of the subject that is present in your kind reply.
John J. Gilligan | 11.03.05 - 11:24 am | #

the term "fully human" has a distressingly feel-good, new-age sound to it, like "self-actualization."

Fulfillment of one's nature is an intrinsic dimension of the goal of theosis. "[M]an, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself." You cannot become a partaker of the divine nature without being fulfilled; that communion has always been our destiny, even though it is absolutely unattainable by human power alone.
pha | 11.03.05 - 1:29 pm | #

"The glory of God is a human being fully alive." St. Irenaios of Lyons
pha | 11.03.05 - 1:30 pm | #

John, you are very welcome. And it is a subject I love, not only Mary, but everything about Catholicism, which is Christ, our greatest treasure!

pha: Everything you say is correct. My only point is we need to be sure we are communicating to others what we mean by "fully human," which is not merely human, but truly divinized human in the sense that we are filled and permeated with the presence of God, who is our destiny, and truly changed by Him, our very nature elevated and glorified in a way never experienced by Adam and Eve before the fall.

We may know the meaning of our terms, but those who don't share our viewpoint do not. For myself, a convert to Catholicism and former new-ager, I can tell you that to a new-ager, or possibly even an uninformed Catholic, the phrase "fully human" would indeed sound like a self-oriented self-actualization, conducted by the self, not a God-oriented transformation conducted by God through our loving obedience.

Also, in recent decades, there have been schools of Catholic theology that have focused too much on the self and not enough on God and the self in relation to God. These schools of thought have been discounted, but strains of their thought have made it into our world anyway. So we need to be careful how, and what, we communicate.

Blessings to all - got to get to class now!
Aimee Milburn | 11.03.05 - 4:28 pm | #

My only point is we need to be sure we are communicating to others what we mean by "fully human," which is not merely human, but truly divinized human in the sense that we are filled and permeated with the presence of God, who is our destiny, and truly changed by Him, our very nature elevated and glorified in a way never experienced by Adam and Eve before the fall.

This point has already been communicated in this combox, e.g. "Redemption/salvation not only offers humanity the opportunity for restoration to its pre-Fall state, it also goes infinitely further, to offer us the opportunity for glory (theosis, in eastern usage)" and "our goal is greater than restoration to our prelapsarian state" and "[we are] becoming more human, by God's grace." Pretty much the whole thread here is about theosis.

When you protested "I thought that we are not only to be restored to our original unfallen human state and receive the beatific vision, but that our human state is to be elevated and glorified by not only seeing, but becoming true partakers of the divine life of God interiorly," it seemed like you didn't really bother to read what preceded your comments. All that has been brought up already.
pha | 11.03.05 - 4:54 pm | #

I'm not trying to be a jerk or attack you, I just think it's strange that you're protesting about the supposed absence of ideas that have already been discussed here. *puzzled*
pha | 11.03.05 - 4:56 pm | #

In order to ease your puzzlement, let me explain: I was trying to clarify and add my own perspective to a point already made, that's all. Is that not what discussion is for? My apologies if I did so poorly.

Pax.
Aimee Milburn | 11.04.05 - 10:25 am | #