A reader writes:
I was told in a discussion I was having with a fallen away Catholic the following:
There was a respected Cardinal theologian of the Vatican that wrote that the "virgin birth" is an "ontological" story … Not an "historical" one. The church doesn't even believe it. Do you know which Cardinal wrote that tenet of the church? Ratzinger!!!
My questions is the obvious one, has Pope Benedict XVI ever said anything close to this, and if so, I need an explanation.
I've been subsequently told that he did talk on the ontological reality of the Virgin Birth but did not deny the historical fact. However, I was given nothing to reference.
If your friend said that Cardinal Ratzinger contrasted a historical with an ontological Virgin Birth, there has been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.
In fact, I don't know what it would mean to contrast a historical event with an ontological event. Ontology refers to the study of that which exists (fundamental reality), and if something is an ontological event then it can't be ahistorical (something that never occurred). I suppose one might talk about ontological realities that are outside of time, but I don't know what it would mean to say that the Virgin Birth is one of those.
That being said, there was a statement that Cardinal Ratzinger made in his book Introduction to Christianity which was criticized by Hans urs von Balthasar (not the same person as Gaius Baltar), in which he discussed the conception of Christ and contrasted the biological (not historical) and ontological aspects of the event.
What he said, in essence, was that a virginal conception was not necessary for God to become man. If he wanted to, God could have chosen for Christ to have a human father as well as a heavenly Father.
The ontological reality of the Son of God taking on human nature thus did not require the biological event of a virginal conception. God also could have used the biological event of a nonvirginal conception. The biological aspect of the conception of Christ is thus independent of its ontological dimension (God becoming man).
However, God did choose to use a virginal conception as a way of underscoring the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.
In a Messianic framework: If he has no earthly father, then whose Son is he?
Unfortunately, Cardinal Ratzinger was not–by his own admission–as clear as he meant to be, and some (like von Balthasar) took issue with him, while others outright misrepresented his view.
AND HERE'S THE THE FOOTNOTE IN WHICH CARDINAL RATZINGER CLARIFIED HIS VIEW.
Jimmy Akin you simply rock! Thank you very much for clarifying this issue for me.
“If he has no earthly father, then whose Son is he?”
God could have used the DNA of Joseph. He could even have used a sperm of Joseph. It was a Virgin birth but God using Joseph’s sperm or DNA would give glory to Joseph in Heaven (not on earth) and would explain the genealogy of the Gospels and would be an act of Order. God is a God of order. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the Power of the Most High (the father) overshadowed her so God the son was with the human Jesus by that event. That’s my theory that I offer as a possiblility not a probability. It will be determined in the next life if it has merit.
further somewhat unrelated comment: It amazes me how many high profile people say the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. WRONG. As Father Rutler said “when we speak of the Trinity we perjure ourselves.”
But this is just a misreading of the facts. The Holy Spirit came upon her. The Father overshadowed her.
A science lecturer I once heard stated that when he got to Heaven there was only one thing he wanted to know: whether Christ was haploid or diploid. That would tell him everything about creation he wanted to know. I never knew quite what he meant, but I found the remark funny and intriguing. (though not at all make-or-break with respect to the faith!)
Dear Michael,
You wrote:
further somewhat unrelated comment: It amazes me how many high profile people say the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. WRONG. As Father Rutler said “when we speak of the Trinity we perjure ourselves.”
But this is just a misreading of the facts. The Holy Spirit came upon her. The Father overshadowed her.
The facts, as recorded in Scripture are more nuanced than that. The exact wording is:
Luke 1: 35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.[RSV]
In Greek:
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ
pneuma hagios eperchomia (fut. tense = epelehsetai) dynamis hypsistos episkiazo dio
holy spirit will come upon you power highest will overshodow you
The word, overshadow, episkiazo (the root; in the text, episkiasei – the future tense), comes from the sense of a bright shining cloud that casts a shadow. The bright shining cloud in the Old Testament, was a sign that God was present to the Jewish people as they wandered though the desert. So was the cloud that settled upon the meeting tent. Likewise, in Num 11:24 -25:
So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and placed them round about the tent.
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did so no more.
Clearly, since Mary is to be the new Tabernacle, the use of the word, overshadow, is reference to exodus 13: 21:
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; [RSV]
Traditionally, the power of the most high was not simply a reference to God the Father, but to the Holy Spirit. In this passage, one sees the Pillar of Fire, which is traditionally the sign of the Holy Spirit (cf. Pentecost), and the Cloud, which is the traditional sign of God, the Father – see Exodus, 19:9:
And the LORD said to Moses, “Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever.” Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
Note, however, that the concept of God as father was virtually unknown to the Jewish people at the Annunciation. In fact, the passage does not say, the power of God, or the Power of the Father will overshadow Mary, but rather, the Power of the Most High. The term, hypsistos, means, in this passage, highest in rank, ranking above all others. This is not a personal term. This is a term of classification. Father is a personal term. As such, the term would not have been recognized as referring to God, the Father at the time it occurred, but rather, the totality of the Godhead.
Traditionally, however, it has been used, in tandem with the reference to the Holy Spirit and the fact that Mary was tilled with the holy Spirit (or grace) to indicate that it was the Holy Spirit who was the principle actor. In any case, the reference in Luke is not a personal reference. God, when he acts, always acts as the Trinity, even though on person is usually more evident than the others.
I do not know who Fr. Rutler is nor in what context he is speaking, but the simple statement that when we speak of the Trinity, we perjure ourselves, is not supported by any Church document of which i am aware. What was the context, because, by itself, this statement is, as far as I understand it, a heresy.
Please, Michael, clarify.
The chicken
+J.M.J+
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the Section on “Symbols of the Holy Spirit”:
697 Cloud and light. These two images occur together in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory – with Moses on Mount Sinai,43 at the tent of meeting,44 and during the wandering in the desert,45 and with Solomon at the dedication of the Temple.46 In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus.47 On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the “cloud came and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!'”48 Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming.49
Footnotes:
43 Cf. Ex 24:15-18.
44 Cf. Ex 33:9-10.
45 Cf. Ex 40:36-38; 1 Cor 10:1-2.
46 Cf. 1 Kings 8:10-12.
47 Lk 1:35.
48 Lk 9:34-35.
49 Cf. Acts 1:9; cf. Lk 21:27.
According to this, the cloud is primarily a theophany of the Holy Ghost. Though The Masked Chicken is right that the Holy Trinity acts as one in regard to creatures. So all Three Persons would have been present in the cloud/Shekinah glory and the “Power of the Most High” in Luke 1:35 might mean the power of the totality of the Godhead.
In Jesu et Maria,
All
Excellent thread and commentary debate. Aquinas seems to hold that the original filiation from the Father is key to the second as though repeating, but at that, only as a new relation…see whole of link at end of quote:
“Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same nativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother in time: indeed, these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to this, we must say that there are various filiations, one temporal and the other eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature nor part of the nature, but the person or hypostasis alone; and since in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal, there can be no other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal hypostasis.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article5