The Scotist view of the Incarnation really does make more sense than the Thomist one. It gives a beauty and dignity to Creation; the idea that the world was made for Christ, and the Church, his Bride, was prepared for him before the Creation of the world.
For the three of you not in the know, the Scotist view was that of Blessed John Duns Scotus, and championed by the Franciscans, that Jesus Christ would have become Incarnate even if there had been no Fall. The Thomist view, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, and defended by the Dominicans, was that Jesus became Incarnate because of the Fall.
Obviously, the Fall threw a spanner in the works, and therefore we did not recognise Christ when he came: we rejected his message, and he had to undergo the Cross.
Sorry... just musing out loud. It's been a weird sort of day.
4 comments:
Beautiful musing...
beautiful photo.
I like the Scotist idea myself...seems to make sense, given the wonder of creation!
"O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam that won for us so great a redeemer!" - from the Exultet
Ah yes... but that was (probably) written by a Thomist...
;-P
...also, the Redemption bit WAS due to Original Sin. It's Salvation that would have happened anyway (salvation doesn't just mean "saved from sin" but set apart for something higher...)
Yes; but Mac - there's no necessary connection between God's creation of man as a creature of matter and spirit and the Incarnation . . . which you in effect recognize by asking 'why bother', implying that God's reasoning must be limited to what mankind sees as reasonable : which quite clearly isn't inherently true.
Also, isn't there an argument that there is more 'beauty and dignity' in creation if the world was created solely out of the generosity of God towards His creatures, and not necessarily because He originally intended His Son to become part of it ? If He had, then surely creation would primarily be an act of justice towards His Son, rather than of generosity towards mankind ?
Post a Comment