What If...

[kateri05]

[quote]The Incarnation would not have been necessary had the Fall not occurred[/quote]

incorrect!! God did not become man because of sin, God had to die on the cross because of sin.

the Incarnation was always part of the deal, because the Divine Plan always intended that we should become one with God through Christ. some say this is what Satan objected to, that men "should be like God," and "higher than the angels." the only way to be higher than angels, would be through Christ, as His Body.

in otherwords, we were always intended to be even better than we started out.

Edited August 7, 2007 by kateri05

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1351871' date='Aug 7 2007, 01:10 AM']incorrect!! God did not become man because of sin, God had to die on the cross because of sin.

the Incarnation was always part of the deal, because the Divine Plan always intended that we should become one with God through Christ. some say this is what Satan objected to, that men "should be like God," and "higher than the angels." the only way to be higher than angels, would be through Christ, as His Body.

in otherwords, we were always intended to be even better than we started out. [/quote]

Well, here's what St. Aquinas has to say:

[quote name='Summa Theologica' date=' Tertia Pars, Q. 1, Art. 3']Article 3. Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin"; and these were discussed above (2). Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Objection 2. Further, it belongs to the omnipotence of the Divine power to perfect His works, and to manifest Himself by some infinite effect. But no mere creature can be called an infinite effect, since it is finite of its very essence. Now, seemingly, in the work of Incarnation alone is an infinite effect of the Divine power manifested in a special manner by which power things infinitely distant are united, inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is God. And in this work especially the universe would seem to be perfected, inasmuch as the last creature--viz. man--is united to the first principle--viz. God. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Objection 3. Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Objection 4. Further, God's predestination is eternal. But it is said of Christ (Romans 1:4): "Who was predestined the Son of God in power." Therefore, even before sin, it was necessary that the Son of God should become incarnate, in order to fulfil God's predestination.

Objection 5. Further, the mystery of Incarnation was revealed to the first man, as is plain from Gn. 2:23. "This now is bone of my bones," etc. which the Apostle says is "a great sacrament . . . in Christ and in the Church," as is plain from Eph. 5:32. But man could not be fore-conscious of his fall, for the same reason that the angels could not, as Augustine proves (Gen. ad lit. xi, 18). Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Lk. 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Tim. 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.

Reply to Objection 1. All the other causes which are assigned in the preceding article have to do with a remedy for sin. For if man had not sinned, he would have been endowed with the light of Divine wisdom, and would have been perfected by God with the righteousness of justice in order to know and carry out everything needful. But because man, on deserting God, had stooped to corporeal things, it was necessary that God should take flesh, and by corporeal things should afford him the remedy of salvation. Hence, on John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh," St. Augustine says (Tract. ii): "Flesh had blinded thee, flesh heals thee; for Christ came and overthrew the vices of the flesh."

Reply to Objection 2. The infinity of Divine power is shown in the mode of production of things from nothing. Again, it suffices for the perfection of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural manner to God as to an end. But that a creature should be united to God in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature.

Reply to Objection 3. A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, 105, 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"

Reply to Objection 4. Predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future things; and hence, as God predestines the salvation of anyone to be brought about by the prayers of others, so also He predestined the work of Incarnation to be the remedy of human sin.

Reply to Objection 5. Nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one to whom the cause is not revealed. Hence, the mystery of Incarnation could be revealed to the first man without his being fore-conscious of his fall. For not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause.[/quote]

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1351838' date='Aug 7 2007, 02:19 AM']So, this brings me to ask this (this may be basic stuff, I don't know. If it is, sorry, I'm new to all of this):
Has the trinity always been? Or prior to Christ's coming, was it only the Father and the Holy Spirit?[/quote]

No need to apologize my friend, you're new to this, still learning, still in the conversion process. Ask whatever you need to in order to make Church teaching clear, even if you're afraid it might be a dumb question.

God Bless!

[scardella]

All I know is that we'd all be naked.

[Socrates]

This issue has been debated since at least the Middle Ages. (I believe there was a "Dominican position" vs. a "Franciscan position.")
One side said the Incarnation would not have happened had Adam not fallen and man needed a Redeemer. The other said that Christ would have become incarnate anyway out of pure love.

This remains purely speculative theology, and the Church does not have an "official" dogmatic stance on this issue.

[Resurrexi]

Yes, it does, but the Church often (though not always) follows Thomisitc theology.

[Socrates]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1352638' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:10 PM']Yes, it does, but the Church often (though not always) follows Thomisitc theology.[/quote]
Could you produce documentation of where the Church makes an official dogmatic stance on this issue?

St. Thomas himself does not give a definitive answer, but aknowledges that there are differing opinions:
[quote]I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1352649' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:21 PM']Could you produce documentation of where the Church makes an official dogmatic stance on this issue?[/quote]

Well, there's the fact that the two books placed on the altar at the Council of Trent were the Scriptures and Summa Theologiae... and yes, that actually happened. it's somewhere in the CE

[quote name='Socrates' post='1352649' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:21 PM']St. Thomas himself does not give a definitive answer, but aknowledges that there are differing opinions:[/quote]


[quote]For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. [b]Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. [/b]And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.[/quote]

Edited August 8, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Resurrexi]

By the way, here is the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia I was talking about:

[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia article "St. Thomas Aquinas"']But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have.

Before this section is closed mention should be made of two books widely known and highly esteemed, which were inspired by and drawn from the writings of St. Thomas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed by disciples of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in convenient form for the use of parish priests. Dante's "Divina Commedia" has been called "the Summa of St. Thomas in verse", and commentators trace the great Florentine poet's divisions and descriptions of the virtues and vices to the "Secunda Secundae".
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm[/url][/quote]

[kateri05]

st. thomas is NOT the magisterium. just because he taught something does NOT make it the default teaching of the Church. the Summa does not equal dogmatic statements.

this applies to all things, not just this discussion.

<<gets off soapbox.>> sorry i work with a lot of thomists and St. Thomas is an awesome saint and Doctor of the Church and the Church is better for him, but it is SUPER important to remember that he is NOT the end all and be all of Church teaching and doctrine.

ok, i'm done now

[Socrates]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1352653' date='Aug 7 2007, 11:26 PM']Well, there's the fact that the two books placed on the altar at the Council of Trent were the Scriptures and Summa Theologiae... and yes, that actually happened. it's somewhere in the CE[/quote]

[quote]For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. [b]And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate[/b].[/quote]

Yet St. Thomas also says that God could have become Incarnate without sin in the world.

Whether He would have is open to speculation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1352712' date='Aug 8 2007, 04:19 AM']st. thomas is NOT the magisterium. just because he taught something does NOT make it the default teaching of the Church. the Summa does not equal dogmatic statements.

this applies to all things, not just this discussion.

<<gets off soapbox.>> sorry i work with a lot of thomists and St. Thomas is an awesome saint and Doctor of the Church and the Church is better for him, but it is SUPER important to remember that he is NOT the end all and be all of Church teaching and doctrine.

ok, i'm done now [/quote]

But you have to admit that quite often the Magisterium often uses his theology more that the theology than others which makes him a good source if you'd like to argue a theological point.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1353138' date='Aug 8 2007, 06:46 PM']Yet St. Thomas also says that God could have become Incarnate without sin in the world.

Whether He would have is open to speculation.[/quote]

But it is "more in accordance with this [Scripture] ... that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been."

[kateri05]

it is St. THomas's [i]opinion [/i]that it is "more in accordance with Scripture." you are free to disagree