The Incarnation Confession
Okay, I have a confession: I had never heard the word “Incarnation” until I became Catholic! Sigh. I’ve said before what a simple soul I am! But to top it off, if I would have had to give a definition, I would have said that the Incarnation was the birth of Jesus.
Not true.
The Incarnation begins at the very moment of the Divine Conception. THAT is when the Word was made flesh! Which I think, in part, is why the Church has never accepted that a child in utero is merely a blob of tissue! If they did so, then they would have to say that Jesus was a mere blob, too, until the moment of His birth.
In the family and church I grew up in, we did talk about the birth of Jesus – usually at Christmas time. But never did we talk about the Incarnation. Looking back on my Christian education, I can honestly say that 92% of it was on what Saint Paul said, and how to live out this faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. The birth of Jesus was a “given” so we didn’t talk about it much. It didn’t need to be debated or argued about – He was born of a virgin named Mary (who was a mere vessel) and we moved on. We just never got into high falutin’ theological terms and if I had to make a list of unusual words that I’ve learned along my journey, Incarnation would be one of them.
Catholics, on the other hand, think about the Incarnation a LOT. Like at every Mass, in the recitation of the Creed. Catholics also think about the Incarnation in the meditation of the Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary, which many pray a couple of times a week. Not me. I’m a slug in the Catholic Devotions Department.
Have I mentioned that I’m a work in progress?
If you look at the whole issue at its roots, how in the world could you ever consider Mary a mere vessel? For heaven’s sake, she bore the very Flesh of God in her womb! Theotokos – “the God-bearer” is what theologians call her. She gave the flesh to the “Word made flesh” and because of that, she was blessed beyond all creatures. Who can argue with the logic of it?
Nestorian, a Fifth Century heretic, tried to. He said that Mary bore only the “human” part of Jesus. He refused to call Mary, “Mother of God” – but it wasn’t because he had a problem with Mary. Nestorian had a problem with Jesus. He believed (and taught incorrectly) that Jesus was two separate persons – one human and one divine. If one believes this, then when, exactly, did Jesus become infused with His Divinity? After His birth? At His Baptism? And if so, how did that infusion happen? As you can see, it becomes a big mess, trying to deny Mary as the Mother of God. This title is rooted in Christ and who He was, not in Mary. She receives the title but only because of Him.
Can you imagine what that must’ve been like, to carry the Son of God? Having been blessed, myself, with two full-term pregnancies, I know what it’s like to feel the first flutterings of life stirring within. and then progressing to feeling the jab of a tiny foot or elbow. Spiritually, I never felt more alive than when I was pregnant – knowing that I was at least partially responsible for bringing a new life into the world.
How much more would Mary have felt this, given all that the Angel Gabriel had told her that night?
Mary alone carried the Divine and the Human nature of Christ within her. For nine months, tucked away, under her heart. Anyone else who had the privilege of knowing Jesus during the thirty-three years He lived on earth, could only have had an external relationship with Him. No one had a deeper relationship with Jesus than Mary.
Another thought comes to my mind: could Mary have sinned while God was growing within her?
Here’s something that Pope Pius X said, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century:
“God could have given us the redeemer of the human race and the Founder of the Faith in another way than through the Virgin, but since Divine Providence has been pleased that we should have the God-man through Mary, who conceived Him by the Holy Spirit and bore Him in her womb, it remains for us to receive Christ only through the hands of Mary.”
It makes sense, doesn’t it, that we don’t leave Mary out of the equation? It was God’s perfect will that she have a central role in bringing forth salvation to the world. And because of that, we should always keep her in the picture – not to exalt her beyond God but to understand how miraculous the Incarnation was in the first place.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating:
No Mary, no Jesus.
Know Mary, know Jesus.
We can’t know Jesus, fully, unless we know Mary, too. By necessity in God’s great plan, Mary had a role – a role far greater than that of a mere incubator.
I need to get to know Mary better, so that I may come to know Jesus in more profound way. She, after all, can do nothing but point to Him.
Not true.
The Incarnation begins at the very moment of the Divine Conception. THAT is when the Word was made flesh! Which I think, in part, is why the Church has never accepted that a child in utero is merely a blob of tissue! If they did so, then they would have to say that Jesus was a mere blob, too, until the moment of His birth.
In the family and church I grew up in, we did talk about the birth of Jesus – usually at Christmas time. But never did we talk about the Incarnation. Looking back on my Christian education, I can honestly say that 92% of it was on what Saint Paul said, and how to live out this faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. The birth of Jesus was a “given” so we didn’t talk about it much. It didn’t need to be debated or argued about – He was born of a virgin named Mary (who was a mere vessel) and we moved on. We just never got into high falutin’ theological terms and if I had to make a list of unusual words that I’ve learned along my journey, Incarnation would be one of them.
Catholics, on the other hand, think about the Incarnation a LOT. Like at every Mass, in the recitation of the Creed. Catholics also think about the Incarnation in the meditation of the Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary, which many pray a couple of times a week. Not me. I’m a slug in the Catholic Devotions Department.
Have I mentioned that I’m a work in progress?
If you look at the whole issue at its roots, how in the world could you ever consider Mary a mere vessel? For heaven’s sake, she bore the very Flesh of God in her womb! Theotokos – “the God-bearer” is what theologians call her. She gave the flesh to the “Word made flesh” and because of that, she was blessed beyond all creatures. Who can argue with the logic of it?
Nestorian, a Fifth Century heretic, tried to. He said that Mary bore only the “human” part of Jesus. He refused to call Mary, “Mother of God” – but it wasn’t because he had a problem with Mary. Nestorian had a problem with Jesus. He believed (and taught incorrectly) that Jesus was two separate persons – one human and one divine. If one believes this, then when, exactly, did Jesus become infused with His Divinity? After His birth? At His Baptism? And if so, how did that infusion happen? As you can see, it becomes a big mess, trying to deny Mary as the Mother of God. This title is rooted in Christ and who He was, not in Mary. She receives the title but only because of Him.
Can you imagine what that must’ve been like, to carry the Son of God? Having been blessed, myself, with two full-term pregnancies, I know what it’s like to feel the first flutterings of life stirring within. and then progressing to feeling the jab of a tiny foot or elbow. Spiritually, I never felt more alive than when I was pregnant – knowing that I was at least partially responsible for bringing a new life into the world.
How much more would Mary have felt this, given all that the Angel Gabriel had told her that night?
Mary alone carried the Divine and the Human nature of Christ within her. For nine months, tucked away, under her heart. Anyone else who had the privilege of knowing Jesus during the thirty-three years He lived on earth, could only have had an external relationship with Him. No one had a deeper relationship with Jesus than Mary.
Another thought comes to my mind: could Mary have sinned while God was growing within her?
Here’s something that Pope Pius X said, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century:
“God could have given us the redeemer of the human race and the Founder of the Faith in another way than through the Virgin, but since Divine Providence has been pleased that we should have the God-man through Mary, who conceived Him by the Holy Spirit and bore Him in her womb, it remains for us to receive Christ only through the hands of Mary.”
It makes sense, doesn’t it, that we don’t leave Mary out of the equation? It was God’s perfect will that she have a central role in bringing forth salvation to the world. And because of that, we should always keep her in the picture – not to exalt her beyond God but to understand how miraculous the Incarnation was in the first place.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating:
No Mary, no Jesus.
Know Mary, know Jesus.
We can’t know Jesus, fully, unless we know Mary, too. By necessity in God’s great plan, Mary had a role – a role far greater than that of a mere incubator.
I need to get to know Mary better, so that I may come to know Jesus in more profound way. She, after all, can do nothing but point to Him.
posted by Dixie @ 6:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home