In my morning devotions (with my mug of espresso) I've been reading through a little book (or collection of letters, really) by St. John Henry Newman, called The Mystical Rose. It's about Mary's role in the Church and in Church history. And he makes a couple of points in passing that I want to share - one now and one tomorrow. The first one is something he says he believes, and he says it very offhandedly, but it's a great answer to a question that medieval philosophers went 'round and around about, and some still to today.
The question is: If humanity had not fallen, would Jesus still have come?
There are variations of the question over the centuries, of course, and a robust answer would have to take into account things like the contingent or permissive will of God vs the absolute will of God (things I do get into in the forthcoming book on prayer in the early Church). But Newman's answer is short and sweet.
He says that God had always intended to come to humanity, but God's original intention was to come in all his glory and visit humanity, but after the fall, he came instead with his glory veiled, not in power, but in weakness. (The implication is, of course, that he will still come in all his glory revealed, but that's the second coming.)
Of course, who knows, maybe it was always God's habit to visit humanity, to walk with his creatures in the Garden (Genesis 3:8), but then after the fall, he stopped doing that, and waited for one decisive visitation.
So then I was thinking, it's as if God was saying to humanity, Since you brought death into the world, the only way I can show you how serious this is, is to take death on myself. Even though you will die, that comes too late in your individual lives for you to make your decisions, and it's not enough to show you both how serious sin is, and how strong my love for you is, so that you can choose to love me by free will, just as you chose to go your own way by free will. So I will become one of you and show you the consequences of sin, because all sin leads to suffering.
So to answer the question of the philosophers, If humanity had not fallen, would Jesus still have come? Newman seems to be saying, Yes, but his coming would have looked different. Now to be fair, that question of the philosophers really includes a part B: If humanity had not fallen, would Jesus have had to DIE? And I guess the answer is, probably not, but then we have to start talking about God's immutability (God's doesn't really change his mind) vs the reality of human free will and God's contingent will. For that, you'll have to read the book ;^)
Here's a short (about a minute) video I took going around the Holy Column in the church of Santa Prassede. This is the column that Jesus was tied to when he was scourged by Pontius Pilate. They don't always have the barrier down, so you usually don't get to see it from all the way around. I wanted to get video of the whole thing all the way around because I ran across a note in an ancient document that said that those who made a pilgrimage (at that time to the Holy Land, since it was still in Jerusalem) could visit the Holy Column, and could see marks left from the hands of Jesus where he gripped it as he was being whipped. I assume that this is pious legend, but I figured since the column has that dark & light marble, maybe there's a place where the dark parts look like hands. I did not see it, but if you do, let me know!
I mentioned in The Journey that I wrote a song based on Isaiah 2, which is one of my favorite OT passages:
In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain, and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!
I hope you like the song!
Here is our next set of texts - as we get into John chapter 6, we first encounter Jesus feeding the multitudes - in this case 5,000 families!
Now, as you know, there is also an account o Jesus feeding 4,000, and so you may also know that some scholars might speculate that these are just different versions of the same story that circulated and were handed down orally, until they were written down. Even the fact that both stories occur in the same gospel would not stop that kind of speculation. So I thought the first question I would have to ask was whether the Church fathers thought this was one event or two - BUT (and you see where this is going) I forgot that Jesus himself makes reference to two separate events (in Matthew 16 and in Mark 8) so there is no question for the Church fathers - these are two separate events. So it seems that Jesus performed this sign (miracle) of the feeding of the multitudes on two occasions. It's not just one event told two different ways, and it's also ...
My voice was still recovering from a bad cold, so not sounding my best, but this was a great conversation about pilgrimage, for the Jubilee year - more of this coming in other interviews! (FYI, I think I was the third of three guests that day, so you will have to fast forward to find me)
It seems that one way or another we need to talk about different kinds, or different levels of heresy. What I have been calling heresy vs. heterodoxy, others call heresy on fundamental doctrines vs. heresy on less fundamental doctrines. In other words, Heresy with a capital H (over fundamental doctrines like the Trinity and christology) are the kinds of heresies that move one outside the boundaries of what Christianity is, and that's because the very definition of Christianity is defined according to these fundamental doctrines. To refuse to sign the Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325, or the Council of Constantinople in 381 - and indeed to reject any of the contents of the Creed today - means that a person is NOT a Christian.
So are the non-chalcedonians, such as the miaphysites (including St. Gregory of Narek, and today's Coptic Christians) - are they heretics? Well, like it is with a lot of things, that depends on your definition of heresy. If you include in your definition of ...
