Mary (not Jesus) is most perfect creature?

sdegutis · #1 Jun 10, '12, 1:48 pm

I was explaining to our children this morning that Mary is the most perfect creation God has created. Then he asked, well what about Jesus? And my wife admitted she was wondering the same thing. I tried to explain that Jesus is God and so therefore is not created. But now it comes to mind, although the Son of God was not created, wasn't his physical body created by God? And wasn't his human soul created as well, even though it was also infused with Divinity? Or maybe I have this all wrong?

-Steven

Todd Easton · #2 Jun 10, '12, 2:53 pm

When we refer to someone or something as a creature, we usually mean that all aspects of their being were created. In this sense, Mary is considered a creature but Jesus is not considered a creature, though some aspects of his being, namely his body and soul, were indeed created, because there is an aspect of his being that is not created, namely his divine nature.

surritter · #3 Jun 10, '12, 3:05 pm

As Todd said, a creature is a unit, and it can't be separated into body and soul. So Jesus is not a creature, though He is a human being.

Credo ergo sum · #4 Jun 10, '12, 3:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by surritter

As Todd said, a creature is a unit, and it can't be separated into body and soul. So Jesus is not a creature, though He is a human being.

Are you sure? I thought he was a divine person, begotten from the Father before all ages, who has taken on a human nature.

bearer · #5 Jun 10, '12, 3:50 pm

Jesus has always existed, even before the beginning of time. He is the beginning and the end. He is one in being with God. He was not created.

sdegutis · #6 Jun 10, '12, 4:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearer

Jesus has always existed, even before the beginning of time. He is the beginning and the end. He is one in being with God. He was not created.

Well, the Son of God existed in the beginning with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But at some point in time, He "became flesh" and took on human nature. After the point that He did so, He was known as Jesus (the Messiah). And when speaking of Jesus we are speaking of the Son of God, so they are one in nature I suppose. But this is confusing.

surritter · #7 Jun 10, '12, 4:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Are you sure? I thought he was a divine person, begotten from the Father before all ages, who has taken on a human nature.

Jesus is indeed a human being. But he is not a human person. That's the difference.

He is a divine Person with two natures: human and divine. But we have to keep the terminology separate: "person," "being," and "nature." Sorry if I introduced confusion

**LilyM** · #8 Jun 10, '12, 4:29 pm

Well - the only difference between Jesus pre-incarnation and post-incarnation is that He took on a human body.

Now when we talk of Mary's (or Jesus') perfection we certainly do not imply that their physical bodies were perfect or flawless. Surely they had physical limitations, which are necessarily imperfections, as all humans do.

Their bodies got tired (remember Jesus falling asleep in the boat?) and hungry (after He fasted for 40 days) and so on.

We are talking of spiritual perfection. And since Jesus' soul was not created as Mary's was, then it is right to say she was the most (spiritually) perfect creature.

Credo ergo sum · #9 Jun 10, '12, 4:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by surritter

Jesus is indeed a human being. But he is not a human person. That's the difference.

He is a divine Person with two natures: human and divine. But we have to keep the terminology separate: "person," "being," and "nature." Sorry if I introduced confusion

No, not at all. I'm just more used to words like physis and hypostasis.

bearer · #10 Jun 10, '12, 4:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdegutis

Well, the Son of God existed in the beginning with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But at some point in time, He "became flesh" and took on human nature. After the point that He did so, He was known as Jesus (the Messiah). And when speaking of Jesus we are speaking of the Son of God, so they are one in nature I suppose. But this is confusing.

It is a mystery.

Just keep in mind that Jesus Christ is God and God was not created. He existed long before assuming human form.

**jmcrae** · #11 Jun 10, '12, 5:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdegutis

Well, the Son of God existed in the beginning with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But at some point in time, He "became flesh" and took on human nature. After the point that He did so, He was known as Jesus (the Messiah). And when speaking of Jesus we are speaking of the Son of God, so they are one in nature I suppose. But this is confusing.

That was not the moment of His creation however. This was the point being debated at Ephesus, and the conclusion was, that Mary is "Theotokos" the God-bearer - whom she bore was not created by God in her womb, but was in fact the Creator Himself, from all ages.

She gave Him her flesh, but there was only the taking on of human nature; there was no ex nihilo creation taking place there.

Blue Horizon · #12 Jun 10, '12, 5:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdegutis

I was explaining to our children this morning that Mary is the most perfect creation God has created. Then he asked, well what about Jesus? And my wife admitted she was wondering the same thing. I tried to explain that Jesus is God and so therefore is not created. But now it comes to mind, although the Son of God was not created, wasn't his physical body created by God? And wasn't his human soul created as well, even though it was also infused with Divinity? Or maybe I have this all wrong?
-Steven

SDegutis
We need to understand that there are various levels of "being".
This is further complicated by sanctifying grace which is in reality a way of talking about sharing or participating in God's being - which human souls have a potentiality for.
Finally the effects of the Fall and of future Glorification probably have to be taken into account as well.

Now you have severely limited the discussion by clearly stating you are talking about "creation."

In traditional Catholic theology the most perfect natural, created being or "substance" (which is what your written statement says even if you intended something different) is the highest Angelic being. I am not sure which is the closest in nature to God - it is either Lucifer or Michael. (If Lucifer wounded his own created nature by rebelling against God, something I am not sure about, then that probably leaves Michael as the closest in nature to God).

Notice that we cannot talk about angels in general but have actually named a particular angel. There is a very good reason for this. No two angels possess the same natural perfection (as may be the case with humans who are individuated by matter alone). Angels have no "matter" so can only be differentiated by their "form." And natural perfection is traditionally regarded as a consequence of form.

Regardless, if we paraphrase your literal question to refer to material creation then I would suggest the most perfect natural human creation was Adam (or possibly Eve but that may be difficult as she was taken from Adam. Then again if Adam is missing a rib perhaps Eve is more perfect than Adam - depends on wheether or not she has a rib missing also). But joking aside, Adam/Eve before the Fall were formed as perfectly as all Humans were meant to be.

However the reason why your intuition says Mary is possibly because you have confused the order of creation (Human "substance") with the order of grace (Divine "substance"). After Jesus we believe Mary to be the best example of human creation whose will was most united with that of God and who therefore "participated" most fully in the Divine Substance and therefore shares most fully in the Divine Nature.

But strictly speaking, in your above sense, it is Jesus who is the most perfect human being (though we probably cannot called him a "creature" in the same sense that you use the term) because his will is far more perfectly united with God's than Mary's and not simply as a matter of degree but as a matter of quality of union as well.

Finally, in terms of the end time, when the human natures of the Blessed are fully healed/restored and transformed we will all be on a par with that original created perfection of human nature/substance that Adam and Eve possessed. In that case, if we exclude differences due to grace, then probably none of the blessed are any more perfect than any other at the level of raw human nature. However it is really nonsense to try and separate out created nature and grace in heaven. (It is probably impossible to try and deliminate out nascent "human nature" as Grace and its effects are too intimately intertwined).

So, depending on exactly what your question really means, you have a range of answers -some more complicated I am sure than you originally intended.
But a very thought provoking question all the same

.

Mintaka · #13 Jun 11, '12, 11:36 am

A creature is made. The Son was "begotten, not made." That's the whole point of that bit of the Creed.

He took on the flesh and the nature of a human; then He was both uncreated and a participant in Creation. At that point, I suppose you could say that He was "true God and true creature," but you still couldn't say that Jesus was created. There never was a time (or a state outside of space/time) when Jesus was not. He was begotten, God from God, from all eternity.