God The Father / God The Holy Spirit ( Details Inside )

[superblue]

So I have been reflecting lately on the { Hail Mary } prayer, mainly the part in the prayer which states, " conceived by the Holy Spirit " .

 

Which lead me to wonder, exactly who then is the " father of Christ ",  if God the father sent the Holy Spirit, then seems like the Holy Spirit is the " parental father of Christ " ?

 

It is fairly easy to understand St. Joseph as the earthly / stepfather of Christ ,  but I dunno why this question popped up in my head, it just seems odd,

 

and then I think this would thusly evolve into more questions, but how to separate God the father, from the Holy Spirit, to conceive , but to then turn around an say God the Father is the parental father not the Holy Spirit ?

 

k bye.

[superblue]

k 11 views in like 2 minutes, come on ya slackers, it is Saturday .Make up an answer -if ya got to. Just make it  a logical hypothesis at best, or a best guess.

[truthfinder]

Well, the Hail Mary doesn't have "conceived by the Holy Spirit" in it.  Maybe someone with much better latin knowledge will pipe up, but I'd wager that you could even more closely translate the Apostles Creed as "conceived of the Holy Spirit" .  Further, the relationship of Mary with the Trinity may help with the explanation of who the father of Christ is.

 

Mary is the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

[superblue]

Well, the Hail Mary doesn't have "conceived by the Holy Spirit" in it.  Maybe someone with much better latin knowledge will pipe up, but I'd wager that you could even more closely translate the Apostles Creed as "conceived of the Holy Spirit" .  Further, the relationship of Mary with the Trinity may help with the explanation of who the father of Christ is.

 

Mary is the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Ty for the correction, I don't know why I thought that phrase was in the Hail Mary.

 

But there ya go you said what I was getting at, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, so then the Holy Spirit would be the parental father of Christ, But how is Mary the Mother of God the Father and God the Son ?

 

If that is what you meant

[Nihil Obstat]

Ty for the correction, I don't know why I thought that phrase was in the Hail Mary.
 
But there ya go you said what I was getting at, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, so then the Holy Spirit would be the parental father of Christ, But how is Mary the Mother of God the Father and God the Son ?
 
If that is what you meant

"The sacred writers attribute to the Holy Ghost all the works characteristic of Divine power. [...] It is by His operation that the greatest of Divine mysteries, the Incarnation of the Word, is accomplished (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)."
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
 
 
I think it is more correct to say that it was the Holy Ghost's 'operation' which accomplished the Incarnation, but incorrect to conclude by this that the Holy Ghost is the parent of Christ.
 
In terms of Mary, 

"Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]"

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

 

Remember that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, but there are not three Gods. In the same way, Jesus Christ is not the Father. They are distinct persons. It is correct and orthodox to say that Mary is the theotokos, the Mother of God, and it is clearly correct to say that she is the mother of Christ, but I do not believe it is correct to say that she is the mother of God the Father.

[pippo buono]

Perhaps this can be most easily clarified by the remembering the more complete phraseology: "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

 

Taking this into account, the Holy Spirit isn't so much the parent of Christ as the one who makes the conception possible.

 

To draw a comparison: A father and a mother are able to to conceive a child if they have the power to do so, but that power to conceive is not the the parent of the child. The parents from whom this power comes are the father and the mother.

(Being that it's a comparison that uses human terms of conception that aren't applicable to God, it's a very imperfect example. Rather, its merit is in the analogy.)

 

As for giving the Holy Spirit the title "Spouse of Mary"... I suppose you can say that in an analogical sense, but I'm not sure that's the most precise or helpful title, especially concerning this topic.

Edited September 10, 2014 by pippo buono

[superblue]

Perhaps this can be most easily clarified by the remembering the more complete phraseology: "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

 

Taking this into account, the Holy Spirit isn't so much the parent of Christ as the one who makes the conception possible.

 

To draw a comparison: A father and a mother are able to to conceive a child if they have the power to do so, but that power to conceive is not the the parent of the child. The parents from whom this power comes are the father and the mother.

(Being that it's a comparison that uses human terms of conception that aren't applicable to God, it's a very imperfect example. Rather, its merit is in the analogy.)

 

As for giving the Holy Spirit the title "Spouse of Mary"... I suppose you can say that in an analogical sense, but I'm not sure that's the most precise or helpful title, especially concerning this topic.

 

well, conceived by the power, or conceived by, either way the phrase ends with the Holy Spirit,  so, for  man A to say to man B, I give you permission to do etc, does man A then really have the credit for accomplishing said task, that man B actually performed ?

 

And then why wouldn't the Holy Spirit be considered the Spouse of Mary in a literal sense .

 

 

I do defer as stated before that I confused where the phrase came from, I should have stated I was contemplating that particular phrase, and the actual Father of Christ.

 

An I agree in that it would be incorrect to label Mary as the mother of God the father, I can grasp that much, that she is the mother of God the Son.

 

 

and extra credit and 10,000 points if anyone can find any official article which hits on this specific question / topic.

[Amppax]

Debate table isn't really the place for this sort of thing, ask the question in the Q&A section. Also, this doesn't answer your question, but here's an interesting reflection on the Holy Spirit from Scott Hahn. It uses the analogy of a mother to come to an understanding of the Holy Spirit. 

[pippo buono]

well, conceived by the power, or conceived by, either way the phrase ends with the Holy Spirit,  so, for  man A to say to man B, I give you permission to do etc, does man A then really have the credit for accomplishing said task, that man B actually performed ?

 

As you put it in your example, no. Man A would not be able to take credit for the action that man B performed.

 

The difference is that God the Father is not totally disassociated from the action of the Holy Spirit. It is not a simple consent on the part of the Father, but rather the something that the Father wills and carries out through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

St. Ireneaus of Lyon speaks of creation and redemption being carried out by the Father's two hands: the Son and the Holy Spirit. This concept is repeated in section 704 of the Catechism. The flaw with the analogy (as all analogies are imperfect), is that it doesn't underline their role as Divine Persons as much. Still, it is useful for understanding how each is intimately involved in the Father's work.

[truthfinder]

"By the power" is not in the creed, it was an arguably poor translation.

[pippo buono]

"By the power" is not in the creed, it was an arguably poor translation.

 

True. "By the power" would not be a direct translation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Arguably, not even "by" would appear. It seems that the most direct translation would be something like "of" or "from" the Holy Spirit.

 

Translation in general is not always simple work. Oftentimes a direct translation is not the best one, as it does not express adequately the reality intended in the original language. I experience this all the time reading and translating documents from Spanish to English and vice versa. When I translate, I often add more than what the direct translation entails, using more accepted sayings or phraseologies in the destined language, simply because the original richness would be lost to a greater degree otherwise.

 

So I think you are right. It is an arguably poor translation inasmuch as it is not a direct one. But I would argue from experience that a direct translation of "was incarnate from/of the Holy Spirit" is equally poor. Not even the Creed as it stands after the linguistic changes in the liturgy in 2011 uses this direct translation. (Or did I miss something? I left the country before the changes took place. Even still when I go to visit I mess up saying the old form of the Creed in Mass.) As the saying goes, omnis traductor traditor.

 

But let's use, for the sake of argument, the translation we can all agree on: "by the Holy Spirit." This phraseology does not nullify what I stated previously. We can say that the meaning is more ambiguous, but the sense that I have argued for remains present as a possibility.

 

My purpose in expanding the phraseology, (a phrasing that was officially accepted and pronounced in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church in the United States for some time) was to open the discussion to a greater precision of what we mean when we say "by the Holy Spirit" in order to resolve the original question. Being that this was official in nature, I think its use to respond to the question at hand is legitimate as well as the most correct.

Edited September 11, 2014 by pippo buono

[PhuturePriest]

So I have been reflecting lately on the { Hail Mary } prayer, mainly the part in the prayer which states, " conceived by the Holy Spirit " .

 

Which lead me to wonder, exactly who then is the " father of Christ ",  if God the father sent the Holy Spirit, then seems like the Holy Spirit is the " parental father of Christ " ?

 

It is fairly easy to understand St. Joseph as the earthly / stepfather of Christ ,  but I dunno why this question popped up in my head, it just seems odd,

 

and then I think this would thusly evolve into more questions, but how to separate God the father, from the Holy Spirit, to conceive , but to then turn around an say God the Father is the parental father not the Holy Spirit ?

 

k bye.

 

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit "overshadowed Mary". Because of that, Saint Maximilian Kolbe and Pope Leo XIII call Mary the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

[truthfinder]

True. "By the power" would not be a direct translation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Arguably, not even "by" would appear. It seems that the most direct translation would be something like "of" or "from" the Holy Spirit.

 

Translation in general is not always simple work. Oftentimes a direct translation is not the best one, as it does not express adequately the reality intended in the original language. I experience this all the time reading and translating documents from Spanish to English and vice versa. When I translate, I often add more than what the direct translation entails, using more accepted sayings or phraseologies in the destined language, simply because the original richness would be lost to a greater degree otherwise.

 

 

 

I understand how translation works, I've done enough of it myself.  That being said, the Vatican decided that the theory being used to translate liturgy, dynamic equivalence, was inappropriate for the liturgy. When it comes to liturgy, although the translations are authorized, the authentic belief is held in the Latin (or in some cases Greek or Hebrew) originals which is the language of the Church.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I understand how translation works, I've done enough of it myself.  That being said, the Vatican decided that the theory being used to translate liturgy, dynamic equivalence, was inappropriate for the liturgy. When it comes to liturgy, although the translations are authorized, the authentic belief is held in the Latin (or in some cases Greek or Hebrew) originals which is the language of the Church.  

[truthfinder]

 

I understand how translation works, I've done enough of it myself.  That being said, the Vatican decided that the theory being used to translate liturgy, dynamic equivalence, was inappropriate for the liturgy. When it comes to liturgy, although the translations are authorized, the authentic belief is held in the Latin (or in some cases Greek or Hebrew) originals which is the language of the Church.  

 

Goodness, Nihil. Please don't try to fan the flames.  But I do appreciate the gif - I though you didn't like this version?

[Nihil Obstat]

Goodness, Nihil. Please don't try to fan the flames.  But I do appreciate the gif - I though you didn't like this version?

You would be shocked at how hard it is to find a good burn appreciation gif. :sad2:

[truthfinder]

You would be shocked at how hard it is to find a good burn appreciation gif. :sad2:

I don't look for gifs - I'm rather pleased it was P&P, because I'd probably have called Darcy a prick.

[pippo buono]

I understand how translation works, I've done enough of it myself.  That being said, the Vatican decided that the theory being used to translate liturgy, dynamic equivalence, was inappropriate for the liturgy. When it comes to liturgy, although the translations are authorized, the authentic belief is held in the Latin (or in some cases Greek or Hebrew) originals which is the language of the Church.  

 

That may be the case in the liturgy, but I don't see how this scratches out that an interpretation can be and has been made to understand "by the Holy Spirit" along the lines of "by the power of the Holy Spirit."

 

Can you please clarify how you see that this policy in translation nullifies the sense I have proposed? It seems you are arguing for what translation should be used, which is not in question for me.

[superblue]

Debate table isn't really the place for this sort of thing, ask the question in the Q&A section. Also, this doesn't answer your question, but here's an interesting reflection on the Holy Spirit from Scott Hahn. It uses the analogy of a mother to come to an understanding of the Holy Spirit. 

Actually it is the right place for this as I intended this as a debate instead of just a simple Q & A but thanks for pretending you are the boss of what ever it is you think you are the boss of. An since you stated what ya posted didn't answer my question I don't really need to read it. An I doubt Scott Hann is the expert either.  Even though I have one of his books, but what ever.

[pippo buono]

Allow me to explain my confusion on your point a little more.

 

You have said that the use of dynamic equivalence has been considered inappropriate for the liturgy. This makes perfect sense to me. I can understand the Church's desire to remain close to, what is most commonly, the original Latin and Greek and these cases.

 

What I don't understand is how the argument "dynamic equivalence is considered was considered inappropriate in the liturgy" leads to the conclusion "the interpretation of the phrase as 'by the power of the Holy Spirit' was theologically incorrect." If we continue along this line, that's what I think needs to be discussed. A direct translation might be more appropriate for the liturgy than a dynamic one, but that necessarily lead to the conclusion that the dynamic one was a wrong way of interpreting the phrase.

 

If you mean to say that the direct translation was chosen because it was decided that the profession of faith before was theologically erring in this point before and you can show it, I would have no choice but to admit that what I have said up until now is incorrect. If that cannot be shown, it seems rather that the Church has already shown this understanding of the phrase to be at least in one sense legitimate in itself, though it is less appropriate for the liturgy.

Edited September 12, 2014 by pippo buono