Aborting Jesus

abortion_icon3“As with St. Ireneaus, there is an ecclesiological and sacramental dimension to the doctrine of Recapitulation. Baptism is an essential component of the mystery and for the spiritual life, since the believer must recapitulate that which Christ Himself fulfilled and repeated in His own Recapitulation. As was the case with Sts. Ireneaus and Athanasius, one cannot separate the divine and invisible nature and therefore one cannot separate water and the Spirit into two separate baptisms or events, as this would be a kind of sacramental Nestorianism.

Ftnt. 37 This point cannot be lingered over too long, since many Evangelical Christians make just such a separation. For the Fathers, such a separation always indicates a distorted and incorrect understanding of the Incarnation. It is on the christological basis of recapitulation that infants are baptized, since not to baptize them until they reach the ‘age of reason’ or ‘accountability’ implies that communion between God and man is impossible at this stage of life.  If this principle were pressed into the Incarnatin itself, it would mean that Christ only became God subsequently to His conception. Likewise, the Church’s condemnation of abortion is rooted in the recapitulational principle, since this stage of human life was united indivisibly and unconfusedly with God the Word.  It is therefore contradictory to maintain at one and the same time that infants cannot be baptized, and yet to argue against abortion on the basis of an abstract principle of the ‘sanctity of life’ divorced from its Christological basis.

Joseph P. Farrell, Introduction, The Disputation with Pyrrus of our Father among the Saints Maximus the Confessor, p. xvi.

57 Responses to Aborting Jesus

  1. photios says:

    And where is this evidence in Pelagius? Where are you dreaming this up from now?


  2. rey says:

    “Attribute seems to relate to the verb ‘to attribute’ which is to assign a description or a thing to another thing. (To attribute a work to someone, for instance;)”

    In English sometimes if not more often than not, I think derivation works the opposite from most languages, i.e. the verb is derived from the noun. An attribute is a property and when you attribute something, like attribute an author to a work, you are declaring (rightly or wrongly) that the authorship of so-and-so is a property of the book.

    “The issue of infant baptism between Pelagians and Augustinians was never a matter of dispute. If you think differently, you need to provide some evidence showing as much.”

    The “Pelagians” that Augustine and his minions disputed with were all continental, so that makes sense. But Pelagius himself was opposed to infant baptism and that manifested itself moreso in Britain.

  3. photios says:

    There are divergent positions of the reception of Augustine in the Orthodox Church. It is a very complex issue and not one that is easily treated in a com box which is why I don’t care to engage you here. It is rather evident that he was added very late in the Orthodox Calendar and his addition to the littany of saints during the 5th and 6th Council might have been an interpolation. He was added to the Russian Calendar during the “Western Captivity.” The Orthodox Church has condemned various aspects of ‘Augustinism’ in the 8th Ecumenical Council and the 9th Ecumenical Council (in the person of Barlaam). Whether or not Augustine would or should be condemned as a person would need to be considered as a conciliar decision.

    Three different treatments have been penned by different Orthodox theologians:

    Fr. Michael Azkoul — The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church

    Fr. Seraphim Rose — The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church

    +Photius Farrell — God, History, and Dialectic: The theological foundations of the Two Europes and their cultural consequences

    The issue of infant baptism between Pelagians and Augustinians was never a matter of dispute. If you think differently, you need to provide some evidence showing as much.


  4. RiverC says:

    rey, to rely on plain English, which for instance has one word for ‘love’ which may encompass several things which are and aren’t really ‘love’ in the classical sense, seems problematic at best. English has a propensity to collect words which are similar but distinct in meaning; if we have them we need to make use of them, since in some cases we are bereft of them. If there is a difference between ‘property’ and ‘attribute’ it ought to be noted; they do not seem to be the same word, but might be used the same way in some context.

    Property seems to relate to the word ‘proper’ which sounds more like ‘that which is proper to it’ i.e. natural;

    Attribute seems to relate to the verb ‘to attribute’ which is to assign a description or a thing to another thing. (To attribute a work to someone, for instance;)

    In the case where the thing attributed is actually a property, you would probably see a merging of the two terms. But I think we think not much in terms of natures these days and tend to view the essential and accidental as indistinct. This is probably a backwash from a popularized understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution. (i.e. the notion that the natures of things might be being accidentally changed.)

    I tend to occupy the role of philologist more often than I can recall, mostly because I have discovered that our language can be both a prison and a great freedom for us. Adam used language both to name and to lie & fail at repentance.

    I think John of Damascus also reiterates a lot of that stuff too. But I skipped that part and went on to the 100 heresies and the four books of The Orthodox Faith.

  5. So maybe you should just tell him that he is strictly out of conformity with the Westminster Confession.

    You could probably similarly prove that he is out of accord with Dort.

  6. But your friend really isn’t Augustinian, or for that matter, even a very good Calvinist. Westminster, for instance does say that God permitted evil (VI.I) (though I don’t know that any Christian can deny that at least in some sense God permitted evil), and indeed goes beyond this to say that the permission is united with a compulsion to even in their evil serve God’s holy ends, (which different Christians may interpret differently, but I’m not sure how any Christian can deny this), but concludes “the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (V.IV)

  7. rey says:

    There’s a blog where a Calvinist that I converted to Arminianism for about two weeks, who is back as a Calvinist is literally arguing that God is the FIRST CAUSE of evil but that its ok because there are secondary and contingent causes between him and the final act of evil. According to him, if (and in his case he thinks its when) God decrees for somebody else to sin, that’s ok as long as that somebody else is the one actually doing the sinning. What do you guys think of this? Why does the EO not condemn Augustine just to wake these kinds of people up by shocking them stupid? if for no other reason.

  8. What the hell? Augustine did go to England, but almost a hundred and fifty years after Pelagius died. How could he have forced Pelagius to recant?

    Oh wait, never mind, “Augustinians” not “Augustine.”

    (And anyway, that was a different Augustine.)

  9. rey says:

    “Pelagius thinks that infants NEED to be baptized” according to a forced recantation written by Augustinians.

  10. RiverC,

    Yeah. I realized I’d gotten that backwards and was coming to correct that. Apophatically. My bad.


    Also, at that time, forgeries weren’t quite like they are now. It was probably written, and eventually came to be attributed to Athanasius, or someone thought they were writing down what Athanasius had said, or something like that.

    How would you define attribute? I’m (at a couple of removes) working with Aristotle.

  11. Rey,
    You have reading comprehension problems. I said authored by “Augustinians,” not Augustine. Augustine never thought about having the Creed modified.

    And Augustine never said that God is the author of evil. This isn’t even implied by his teaching on grace.

    There is no evidence that he libeled Pelagius. I think he might have misunderstood Pelagius in some places, but what different does it make to you really. Your doctrine is actually worse than Pelagius! Pelagius thinks that infants NEED to be baptized, not for forgiveness of sins, but to unite them to Christ! You on the other hand don’t think so.


  12. rey says:

    If Augustine is so bad that in addition to claiming God is the author of evil and libeling Pelagius he also forged a creed in Athanasius’ name and taught a totally different concept of the Trinity, that only magnifies my amazement that the Eastern Orthodox Church is unwilling to condemn this guy. I am simply dumfounded.

  13. Rey,

    What is ‘Augustinian’ about it? The filioque obviously, and the idea that the One God is the GODHEAD and not the Father as the Nicene Creed. It’s a gnosticism, givinng old terms (i.e. The One God) new meaning (i.e. the Godhead).
    It was written by Augustinians and has absolutely nothing to do with Athanasius. It is pure fraud to say that it is from Athanasius.


  14. Rey,

    In English attribute means to predicate to make an attribution. It is an act we do relative to some object. Most people misuse the term to mean something like a property, an inherring quality.

    As for the Athanasian Creed, its a representation of Augustinian Trinitarian theology as is evidenced in its endorsement of the Filioque. It is not Athanasian nor an ecumenical creed but a later Frankish construction. And Augustine qas quite happy you say that the soul was reasonable meaning that it had the capacity to think. You equivocate on reasonable as in always acting in a rationally consistent way and having the power to reason. All people have the latter, even if they do not always do the former.

  15. rey says:

    Look, you’re using attribute to mean something totally different than what it means in English, so I’m not even going to argue with you. What’s the point? I’m speaking English and you aren’t. But I am interested in this statement: “If you want to quote the Augustinian quicumque vult as an authority, go ahead. But at least be aware of the irony of what you’re doing.” What is Augustinian about the Athanasian Creed? There isn’t even an anthropological statement in it, except “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man” which is by no means Augustinian. The soul of man is no reasonable in the Augustinian view! I think you fail to see the irony: it is ironic that Augustinians would recite such a creed.

  16. RiverC says:

    aphophatically, you mean, Matthew?

  17. Rey,

    If you want to quote the Augustinian quicumque vult as an authority, go ahead. But at least be aware of the irony of what you’re doing.

    Yes, I know you don’t believe God’s attributes are created. I was using a reductio. I stepped through the logical options, leaving us with only the result that God is He Himself, and that God is measured by nothing but God. If we say God has attributes, we reach contradictions. Either God’s attributes are created, or God didn’t create everything, or His attributes are He Himself. If we say God is measured by a creature, we likewise say God is dependent on creation.

    My point was that there was a distinction between the persons. Re-read my post. You had said that if God doesn’t have attributes, how is He distinguished? Because of our finitude, attributes distinguish, but that logic cannot apply to God. It is not attributes which distinguish the Persons, but Generation and Spiration. And they are not attributes. But even if you want to, like Humpty Dumpty, make your words mean as you would, and call Generation and Spiration attributes, unless Mercy is synonymous with Generation or Spiration, Mercy is not an attribute, and so even then your original statement is nonsense.

    Regarding distinguishing God from creation, we cannot say anything positive about God that distinguishes Him from creation. We can positively distinguish between creation and God, but not between God and creation. If we wish to distinguish between God and creation, we must proceed cataphatically.

  18. rey says:

    “Though because distinguishing between persons isn’t the definition of attribute, but is, because of our finitude, the result of attributes, I doubt anyone would like using ‘attribute’ here.”

    But there has to be a distinction between the Divine Persons although there is no separation. This is certainly the teaching of the Athanasian Creed, for it says that the Father alone is unbegotten, the Son alone is begotten, and the Spirit alone is proceeding. These would be attributes as I use the term, and do distinguish between the Divine Persons without separating their essence.

  19. rey says:

    “The problem with applying attributes to God as we usually use the term, is that an attribute (depending on your philosophy) either is a thing, or is a measure of a thing. But if attribute X is a thing, then God is dependent on something created (namely attribute X)”

    Inasmuch as I said “God has always had an infinite supply of mercy as one of his attributes,” it ought to have been clear I was not speaking of anything created, for if something is created it did not always exist.

  20. rey says:

    “If ordinary lagnuage were adequate, we wouldn’t need more precise terms,” Ordinary language is adequate. Just use circumlocution.

  21. Rev,

    If ordinary lagnuage were adequate, we wouldn’t need more precise terms, but since not the latter, therefore not the former.

    Being careful and precise is hardly stupidity except to the stupid.

  22. Rey,

    If by “attribute” you mean merely “that which distinguishes God from other people” really the only “attributes” of God are “Eternally begets the Son”, “Eternally begotten of the Father” and “Eternally proceeds from the Father.” Though because distinguishing between persons isn’t the definition of attribute, but is, because of our finitude, the result of attributes, I doubt anyone would like using “attribute” here.

    The problem with applying attributes to God as we usually use the term, is that an attribute (depending on your philosophy) either is a thing, or is a measure of a thing. But if attribute X is a thing, then God is dependent on something created (namely attribute X), God did not create everything (namely attribute X), or attribute X is God Himself.

    The exact same problem arises if we say an attribute is something which measures God. Is the standard by which God is measured created? Then God is dependent on creation in His being. Is it uncreated? Then either God didn’t create everything, or the measure is God Himself. I suppose this final position is acceptable: “Christ is the image of the Father” is biblical language, but if we then wish to say that there is any difference between the Son and the Father–i.e. if we wish to say anything of the sort we usually mean by measure–we repeat the problem ad infinitum, postulating not a Trinity, but an Infinity, something like a neo-Platonic emanation of God.

    It is necessary to approach God Chrostologically, Doxologically, and Cataphatically, and not anthropologically, or anthropomorphically.

  23. rey says:

    I don’t go for technical jargon, sorry. Even in my own field I eschew it. If you can’t use normal language, you might as well not say anything at all because all you will do is destroy souls with your stupidity.

  24. I take the word attribute to be he technical jargon that it historically has been. Most people assume it means quality or property but that isn’t necessarily correct. Predication or attribution is an act we do relative to some object whereas properties are some thing. I’d recommend that you read up on history of the term as it will help navigate the conversations here.

  25. rey says:

    “I don’t think God has attributes”

    I don’t know what kind of technical jargon you take the word attributes to be or what kind of technical point you think you have to make to please your attributeless God and not offend him (or is it it, since it has no attributes?), but how can anything exist without characteristics or attributes that distinguish it from other things? A God with no attributes is a god that doesn’t exist, like an apple with no attributes doesn’t exist.

  26. rey,

    I don’t think God has attributes and I don’tthink grace is purely extrinsic or attitudinal either.

  27. rey says:

    On the created/uncreated grace issues. For the Augustinian grace must be created because they mangle its meaning and make it the conferment of the ability to do something. For everyone else, grace should be understood as an outpouring of God’s mercy, and since God has always had an infinite supply of mercy as one of his attributes, it must be uncreated.

  28. Jay,

    Offtopic-There area number of clarifying questions that need to be addressed. Is it called grace becuse its cause is divine or because the effect is also deity? Is the effect the divine essence or something else?

    Answering these questions clearly I think will dispel the ambiguities in Hardon’s entry.

  29. RiverC,

    I think the argument is somewhat different. If Christ goes through as a person all of the natural stages of human development, and this includes conception, then we are persons at conception aswell.

  30. Jay Dyer says:

    Perry and Daniel,

    Off topic, but I have a question. Apotheoun and I were chatting the other day and he mentioned a terrible statement by Fr. John Hardon. Anyway, reading continually on this, elsewhere I noticed Fr. Hardon say this:

    God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God’s own life. All three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.”

    -Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary

    This sounds like what Bonaventure was saying/speculating. It looks like the term “created” is meant to signify an effect in time, not that the grace itself is created.

  31. DavidD says:

    I would suggest from his comments here and on other posts that Rey is not simply an “anabaptist”, but seems to be a follower of what is termed “Moral Government Theology”, basically a reinterpretation of the “theology” of Charles G. Finney and, generally, incorporating what has come to be known as “free will” or “Open” theism.

  32. RiverC says:

    Hmm, so then because of the predestination, in a sense, human life was already sacred even prior to the incarnation.

    A question about natural law; if there is no special status for humanity, it seems to me to either involve some very complex reasonings, or lose the distinction between human lives and other forms of life.

    To me this is worrisome; as a gardener, I have to pluck seedlings and weeds that grow in the wrong places. But the sense I get from plants is that there aren’t really unique individuals – to count each seed the way each human life is strikes me as anthropomorphizing plants. They strike me as one continuous life with many units, some of which may die or will die, but that the impact of that death is not the same as a human death.

    How, through natural law, may we say that human life is truly different or superior? The committed materialists often see no difference, which results in either PETA’s logic (to kill no life at all – madness for farmers and workers) or the cold logic of eugenicists (madness for doctors!)

    To argue that I perceive sort of ‘self evidently’ (which is to say, probably, noetically) a difference between plant life, animal life and human life – doesn’t seem sufficient for natural law.

    I suppose this is why I, following Chesterton, dislike rationalism… the need to take everything to its furthest conclusion means all it takes is one error to mess everything up…

    A side note, the Japanese used to call infanticide ‘thinning’ – a reference to what gardeners and farmers do with seedlings. It is a cruel euphemism, especially since it calls to mind that odious act when doing what seems to be ordinary work…

  33. Fr. Maximus says:

    Nevertheless, it would seem that abortion is wrong purely on considerations of natural law, even if that concept will not get you as far as sanctity of life.

  34. photios says:

    Also Dr. Farrell here is concerned with what is the basis of our dogmatic certainty of both baptism and abortion.

    Debating the issue on purely philosophical or scientific grounds, however interesting, can never actually solve a theological problem because what is of theology is of dogmatic import. Philosophical and scientific theories are in principle revisable. Christ’s Recapitulatory Economy is not revisable.

  35. photios says:

    Perhaps the best way to understand this is to ask yourself why God created and what is the relationship between Creation and Redemption.



  36. RiverC says:


    We’re to assume that the prevailing notion is that human life is inherently sacred, but that the Orthodox position is (or should be) that it is Christ’s union with human nature and the completion of all these things that makes human life sacred?

    Does this then indicate that after the fall and prior to the incarnation, human life was not sacred? Or that it only had the quality of the rest of creation, that is, to be honored and used appropriately? Or is such a question monstrous?

    I would tend to think that even without the incarnation there would be no excuse to throw human life away; but then, maybe I’m missing an important point.

  37. Interpolations of the Jews??!!

    Ok, thats it. This post has nothing to do with the hijacked theme. Please keep your comments on topic. This post was concerning Christological recapitulation as a basis for a pro-life position, showing how Christoogy, rather than a more platonic view of the sacredness of life, was the basis for and the center of the church’s opposition to abortion.

  38. RiverC says:

    I don’t see the contradiction, other than at the surface level.

    I guess you’ve got some issues with “Lead us not into temptation” (from the Lord’s Prayer?)

    What is a man to do.

  39. rey says:

    Adultery and murder are not after God’s own heart, nor is a false doctrine which imputes the cause of man’s sin to God in saying “God, don’t incline my heart to evil” as if God were in the business of doing exactly that! This why James says in the New Testament, James 1:13, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted by God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” But David prays “God, don’t incline my heart to evil”? If God doesn’t temp men to do evil then he certainly does not incline their hearts to evil! So, there is a contradiction between James and David. Who is right? Obviously, James is. After all, James was not an adulterer and murderer, nor was James a polygammist. I dare say James was more a man after God’s own heart than David, despite all the interpolations of the Jews claiming that David was a man after God’s own heart.

  40. RiverC says:

    David, the man after God’s own heart…

    Though Calvin was a heretic, I’m beginning to understand him a little better regarding the Anabaptists.

  41. rey says:

    “‘incline not my heart to evil deeds, to make excuses in sins’ says the Psalmist. Who is he asking to incline his heart not to evil deeds? His own will?”

    Apparently the Psalmist when not writing Messianic prophecy under the guidance of the spirit was a Pagan. The facts do support this notion after all. He was an adulterer and a murderer and his son built temples to many Gods, not just Jehovah.

  42. I believe that Matthew is referring to the doctrine not the word ‘Theotokos’. Mary is only the Theotokos because in Christ the divine and human are united at conception. Thus, if Mary is not the Theotokos, then abortion is just science. If she is the Theotokos, then abortion is destroying that which has been united to the divine.

  43. photios,

    My first paragraph was a joke.

    No, I’m talking about this post. You don’t say Theotokos in this post, but that Mary was Theotokos implies that God was united to pre-natal humanity.

  44. photios says:

    Rey is an anabaptist and he has commented here before under another pseudonymn.

    Are you referring to another post that refers to Theotokos?

  45. I think ray is really Orthodox and just has a really odd sense of humor. At least if that’s the case, his posts make me laugh, rather than wondering what the hell’s wrong with him. I mean can anyone really, seriously, claim that St. Cyprian is Augustinian?

    I did however like the original post. That Mary is Theotokos, and only that Mary is Theotokos can be the ground of our opposition to abortion. Otherwise we are just arguing science.

  46. photios says:

    In some ways rey’s doctrine is worse than Pelagian Bishop Julian Ecclanum. For Julian, corruption is a FUNCTION of being a created hypostasis, so he baptizes infants to make them better. On this point, he agrees with Orthodoxy that we baptize infants to unite the finite and the infinte, and where Julian disagrees is what is the integrity of the first pair. In rey’s thinking, every creature post or pre fall has that spiritual integration until they commit their first sin, with the knowledge of good and evil as being the ability to fall in the first place.


  47. photios says:

    It seems to me anyway that rey thinks death only has a physical impact.

    “But an infant, knowing nothing of it, cannot be persuaded of anything by it.”

    How does that idea square with Christ according to his humanity in infancy? Is the infinite only united to Him once he had full function of his faculties? Is Christ your presupposition to work out problems or is something else?


  48. RiverC says:


    “incline not my heart to evil deeds, to make excuses in sins” says the Psalmist.

    Who is he asking to incline his heart not to evil deeds? His own will?

  49. rey says:

    “Also, do you think that people are born into a state of inherited corruption?” (MG)

    The only moral difference that man inherits since the fall is the knowledge of good an evil that Adam received from the fruit. As the knowledge of good and evil cannot itself be a corruption (seeing God knows good and evil, and is not corrupt) the only possible corruption of man’s nature must be his physical mortality, which alone can be his impetus for sin: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, so also death spread to all men, because of which all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12) But inasmuch as man cannot be made immortal until the resurrection, nothing can diminish his tendency towards sin but his own will, and therefore no external force can make a man sin less except the force of persuasion working on his mind through words or on his heart through a sense of guilt. A believer can have his will to sin diminished by baptism only because he comprehends what it is. But an infant, knowing nothing of it, cannot be persuaded of anything by it.

  50. photios says:

    The Fall dialectically divided the infinite and the finite in man. And that seperation and division is passed onto all of Adam’s progenitor’s. Notice that what I said doesn’t say or imply that infants are born as having sin or guilt.

    So are you going to argue against the good doctor on the recapitulational aspect or are you going to dream up your own objections onto us?


  51. Rey,

    You need to cut out the accusatory and infalamatory remarks or your future comments will be deleted and you will be banned from this venue.

    As for baptism for the remission of sins this is part of the pre-Augustinian creeds. That can be applicable to adults inreference to personal acts but also infants with respect to corruption. You read sin too narrowly.

    Besides, your comment are a bit off topic as the post was not directed to a critique of Augustinianism.

  52. MG says:


    The Orthodox do not baptize to wash away the inherited guilt of Adam (an idea we think implies heresy). But baptism imparts grace, which empowers the recipient with God’s life and power. It also cleanses the infant from some of its inherited corruption (a tendency toward wrongdoing) which is not inherited guilt (the fault for Adam’s wrongdoing) but rather a kind of spiritual disease. So infant baptism does not presuppose any Augustinian theory about the effects of the fall. Infants are baptized because it makes sense to give medicine to children.

    Surely infants can have grace, right? It seems like even if it lays dormant in human nature, waiting until an age at which the child can be morally responsible to personally use it, there’s nothing obviously absurd about the idea that God can give gifts to children.

    Also, do you think that people are born into a state of inherited corruption? Notice I am not saying total depravity is true (because human nature is still intact, for God’s will is to preserve his image). Nor am I saying that people inherit guilt. All I’m wondering about is whether you think that people are born into a state where they tend to act badly.

  53. Jay Dyer says:

    Whoa! Dude, you’re out there!

  54. rey says:

    “It is on the christological basis of recapitulation that infants are baptized, since not to baptize them until they reach the ‘age of reason’ or ‘accountability’ implies that communion between God and man is impossible at this stage of life.”

    Foolishness. It is foolishness to baptize for the remission of sins those who have not yet sinned. And why should the infant need a restoration of communion with God (what baptism is) since he has not lost it yet through sin? Augustine is alive and well in the Eastern Heterodox Church.

  55. rey says:

    To the Augustinian, no life is sacred, as the human being is (those demons in human flesh) worse than putrid dung and condemned to eternal torment in hell at the very point of conception, a totally corrupt and worthless being to be hated rather than loved. And to the Augustinian the Incarnation of Christ is totally worthless to the uplifting of the human race, for Christ (to them) to on a flesh, but not *our* flesh. How could he have taken on *our* flesh, since it was corrupted by “original sin”? Nay, to the Augustinian, he took on merely a celestial flesh! Hence, he did not truly unite Deity with humanity, and did not therefore “upraise” or “upbear” us in his body (as in Athanasius’ interpretation of Psalm 24), for his body was (to them) of a wholly different, even inhuman, flesh.

  56. Jay Dyer says:

    I made this argument to our RCIA class with my Novus Ordo priest. No joke.

%d bloggers like this: