CCC 648 - Is Jesus' Body Part of the Trinity?

[Theresagnes]

This paragraph of the Catechism confused me today when I was doing some reading for a class:

Christ’s Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history. In it the three divine persons act together as one, and manifest their own proper characteristics. The Father’s power “raised up” Christ his Son and by doing so perfectly introduced his Son’s humanity, including his body, into the Trinity.

I know that God does not have a body (catholic.com/tracts/god-has-no-body) but the wording of this paragraph in the Catechism confuses me. How is Jesus’ body part of the Trinity? God is unchangeable, so “introducing” Jesus’ body into the Godhead seems impossible. What am I missing?

Blessings,

Theresa

 

[karebear92]

Jesus ascended into heaven with his body, and will have is body for eternity. It is part of assuming Human nature.

Just as when Jesus was on earth and assumed human nature without changing God, He still has his body after the resurrection and in doing so still does not change the perfection of God.

God the father, on the other hand, does not have a body, as he has not assumed human nature.

 

[Waiting]

This paragraph of the Catechism confused me today when I was doing some reading for a class:

Christ’s Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history. In it the three divine persons act together as one, and manifest their own proper characteristics. The Father’s power “raised up” Christ his Son and by doing so perfectly introduced his Son’s humanity, including his body, into the Trinity.

I know that God does not have a body (catholic.com/tracts/god-has-no-body) but the wording of this paragraph in the Catechism confuses me. How is Jesus’ body part of the Trinity? God is unchangeable, so “introducing” Jesus’ body into the Godhead seems impossible. What am I missing?

Blessings,

Theresa

Jesus is one person with two natures. Inseparable. Mary is the Mother of God, even though she did not give birth to His divine nature. Therefore, Jesus, both natures, is God.

 

[Theresagnes]

Thank you for your replies but they are not really addressing the crux of my question - what does the Catechism mean when they say that Jesus’ body was “introduced” into the Trinity?

 

[karebear92]

Thank you for your replies but they are not really addressing the crux of my question - what does the Catechism mean when they say that Jesus’ body was “introduced” into the Trinity?

As the poster after me mentioned, Jesus had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. When he assumed His human nature, His human body was introduced into the trinity. Before His birth he had just been divine. He had only one nature. After His birth, however, He had two natures, but assuming (introducing, if you will) his human nature did not alter the divine perfection of an unchanging God

 

[Theresagnes]

Thank you for your response karebear!

If you are correct and “introduced into” is interchangeable with “assuming” then I understand a bit better. However, the use of the preposition “into” is pretty confusing to me. It suggests to me that something was interjected “into” a substance. When I think of Jesus’ body assumed by the Trinity, I think of the preposition “onto.”

I think what is also confusing me is that the tense of the sentence seems to suggest that something changed for the Trinity when Jesus’ body ascended into heaven, as opposed to when the Trinity assumed Jesus’ body on earth. Of course, God is unchangeable and outside of time but Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, entered time. So Jesus exited the earth (and time and space) after his Ascension, thereby causing some sort of timeless “change” in the Trinity?

So basically to sum up, I am still confused by the wording. If anyone can give me a more detailed explanation that would be helpful. Or if you know of a book that describes the assumption of Jesus’ humanity in detail, that would be helpful too.

I also want to make it clear that I am not challenging basic Christian doctrine. I know Jesus’ body is not part of the Trinity, (now I know not to put misleading titles on my threads in the hope that more people will respond). I am just trying to understand this mystery more clearly.

Blessings,

Theresa

 

[karebear92]

Thank you for your response karebear!

If you are correct and “introduced into” is interchangeable with “assuming” then I understand a bit better. However, the use of the preposition “into” is pretty confusing to me. It suggests to me that something was interjected “into” a substance. When I think of Jesus’ body assumed by the Trinity, I think of the preposition “onto.”

I think what is also confusing me is that the tense of the sentence seems to suggest that something changed for the Trinity when Jesus’ body ascended into heaven, as opposed to when the Trinity assumed Jesus’ body on earth. Of course, God is unchangeable and outside of time but Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, entered time. So Jesus exited the earth (and time and space) after his Ascension, thereby causing some sort of timeless “change” in the Trinity?

So basically to sum up, I am still confused by the wording. If anyone can give me a more detailed explanation that would be helpful. Or if you know of a book that describes the assumption of Jesus’ humanity in detail, that would be helpful too.

I also want to make it clear that I am not challenging basic Christian doctrine. I know Jesus’ body is not part of the Trinity, (now I know not to put misleading titles on my threads in the hope that more people will respond). I am just trying to understand this mystery more clearly.

Blessings,

Theresa

I feel like if it were “onto” that it would imply that the trinity changed, or his body was merely an addition. For example, if it were introduced onto the trinity, then it would seem as though Jesus’ body was a new extension of the trinity. By being introduced “into” the trinity it demonstrates the oneness of the Son, as the trinity in and of itself did not change.

I can’t think of a good analogy, so I will have to give an imperfect one. If you put sugar into cake batter, then the sugar is one with the cake, but if you sprinkle sugar onto the cake, then you have sugar in addition to that cake.

I also don’t think “assumed” and “introduced” are interchangeable in meaning but complimentary. For example, when Jesus Jesus assumed human nature and took human form, human nature was introduced, as in something is now there that previously wasn’t. Assumed is more similar to “take on.” But if He assumes human nature where human nature previously wasn’t, then human nature has been introduced into the trinity through Jesus’ assumption of human nature.

 

[Waiting]

Thank you for your response karebear!

If you are correct and “introduced into” is interchangeable with “assuming” then I understand a bit better. However, the use of the preposition “into” is pretty confusing to me. It suggests to me that something was interjected “into” a substance. When I think of Jesus’ body assumed by the Trinity, I think of the preposition “onto.”

I think what is also confusing me is that the tense of the sentence seems to suggest that something changed for the Trinity when Jesus’ body ascended into heaven, as opposed to when the Trinity assumed Jesus’ body on earth. Of course, God is unchangeable and outside of time but Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, entered time. So Jesus exited the earth (and time and space) after his Ascension, thereby causing some sort of timeless “change” in the Trinity?

So basically to sum up, I am still confused by the wording. If anyone can give me a more detailed explanation that would be helpful. Or if you know of a book that describes the assumption of Jesus’ humanity in detail, that would be helpful too.

I also want to make it clear that I am not challenging basic Christian doctrine. I know Jesus’ body is not part of the Trinity, (now I know not to put misleading titles on my threads in the hope that more people will respond). I am just trying to understand this mystery more clearly.

Blessings,

Theresa

As you say at the end of your message, the Trinity is a mystery. If we could explain it to everyone’s satisfaction, it would no longer be a mystery. We can’t, so why not just accept that and let it go? When you see the Lord, He may explain more clearly. I’m happy to just know and love the Trinity without full knowledge of how it is.

 

[Theresagnes]

Waiting,

Don’t you think God appreciates when we try to understand Him? I do I know my mind is limited and what I can understand is nothing compared to what God is but that does not mean that I am going to stop trying. I don’t plan to stop straining toward God with my whole heart *and *mind.

Peace to you,

Theresa

 

[Jaaanosik]

Thank you for your replies but they are not really addressing the crux of my question - what does the Catechism mean when they say that Jesus’ body was “introduced” into the Trinity?

Human nature of Jesus, his human body, returned to the Trinity.

 

[Theresagnes]

I feel like if it were “onto” that it would imply that the trinity changed, or his body was merely an addition. For example, if it were introduced onto the trinity, then it would seem as though Jesus’ body was a new extension of the trinity. By being introduced “into” the trinity it demonstrates the oneness of the Son, as the trinity in and of itself did not change.

I can’t think of a good analogy, so I will have to give an imperfect one. If you put sugar into cake batter, then the sugar is one with the cake, but if you sprinkle sugar onto the cake, then you have sugar in addition to that cake.

I also don’t think “assumed” and “introduced” are interchangeable in meaning but complimentary. For example, when Jesus Jesus assumed human nature and took human form, human nature was introduced, as in something is now there that previously wasn’t. Assumed is more similar to “take on.” But if He assumes human nature where human nature previously wasn’t, then human nature has been introduced into the trinity through Jesus’ assumption of human nature.

Thanks Karebear, I have two questions about what you have said that might help me understand better:

1. When you say that Jesus’ human body being introduced into the Trinity demonstrates the oneness of the Son, what do you mean by that?
2. In your last paragraph you are saying that Jesus taking on human nature caused something to be “there” that previously was not “there” - what is there? It cannot be the Trinity right, because that would change the Trinity? In the part I bolded it seems like you are saying that Jesus’ body was introduced into the Trinity because something that was not there was now there - what is “there” - existence? If so, I still do not understand how his body is being introduced into the Trinity.

Hopefully I am understanding what you are saying and if not, I hope you have the patience to continue in dialogue with me. This has been helpful.

Blessings,

Theresa

 

[karebear92]

Thanks Karebear, I have two questions about what you have said that might help me understand better:

1. When you say that Jesus’ human body being introduced into the Trinity demonstrates the oneness of the Son, what do you mean by that?

I meant that when Jesus took on human nature He did have two natures, but it was still two natures in one person. The Trinity did not change as the Son did not change; he simply assumed human nature without at all compromising his divine nature.

I think that is right. If someone sees a mistake, please feel free to correct me.

1. In your last paragraph you are saying that Jesus taking on human nature caused something to be “there” that previously was not “there” - what is there? It cannot be the Trinity right, because that would change the Trinity? In the part I bolded it seems like you are saying that Jesus’ body was introduced into the Trinity because something that was not there was now there - what is “there” - existence? If so, I still do not understand how his body is being introduced into the Trinity.

Hopefully I am understanding what you are saying and if not, I hope you have the patience to continue in dialogue with me. This has been helpful.

Blessings,

Theresa

I was referring to his human being there when it previously wasn’t there. Before He was born He was the eternally begotten son of God, but he was still entirely God. After His birth, however, He was fully God and fully man. So where there was previously just God there is now also man, and since Jesus resurrected with his body, his body is now in heaven, whereas before his birth it was simply His spirit in heaven.

I hope this helps!

God bless!

 

[mosher]

The problem here is one about temporality more than change.

I think that it could successfully be argued that once the Logos assumed flesh the Logos always had flesh. If that sounds like a strange statement then you would be correct. This question must hold together at least a couple doctrines that we know about God.

First, it must respect two philosophical truths about God. It must respect that God is unchanging, i.e., immutable. It must also respect that God is non-temporal, i.e., outside of time. Second, it must respect some revealed truths. It must respect that God is a Trinity of persons. It must respect the reality of the Incarnation. Third, it must respect the different ways in which we can view time.

Because God is immutable we cannot say that the Incarnation changed God. The non-temporality of God helps with this. We can say that all actions of God in time concurrently happen outside of time. In effect, the temporality of an event is something that we perceive. However, the efficient causality of God is singular. It has no extension in time, yet it manifests itself temporally because his creation includes time. As we progress in time we come to experience God’s timeless act. Likewise, when the Incarnation happened in time it already had an eternal characteristic through God’s causal power. So, prior to the Incarnation, as it happened in time, our experience of God would have been one that did not include the Incarnation. However, from God’s perspective the Incarnation was already a reality. So, once the Incarnation happened in time our experience of God would include the Incarnation.

We must also be careful how we speak about this mystery. While we can say that Human Nature was assumed into the Trinity and we can say that God took flesh and we can say that the Logos took flesh. We cannot say, however, that the Godhood took flesh. We cannot say that the Father or the Spirit have flesh.

 

[karebear92]

The problem here is one about temporality more than change.

I think that it could successfully be argued that once the Logos assumed flesh the Logos always had flesh. If that sounds like a strange statement then you would be correct. This question must hold together at least a couple doctrines that we know about God.

First, it must respect two philosophical truths about God. It must respect that God is unchanging, i.e., immutable. It must also respect that God is non-temporal, i.e., outside of time. Second, it must respect some revealed truths. It must respect that God is a Trinity of persons. It must respect the reality of the Incarnation. Third, it must respect the different ways in which we can view time.

Because God is immutable we cannot say that the Incarnation changed God. The non-temporality of God helps with this. We can say that all actions of God in time concurrently happen outside of time. In effect, the temporality of an event is something that we perceive. However, the efficient causality of God is singular. It has no extension in time, yet it manifests itself temporally because his creation includes time. As we progress in time we come to experience God’s timeless act. Likewise, when the Incarnation happened in time it already had an eternal characteristic through God’s causal power. So, prior to the Incarnation, as it happened in time, our experience of God would have been one that did not include the Incarnation. However, from God’s perspective the Incarnation was already a reality. So, once the Incarnation happened in time our experience of God would include the Incarnation.

We must also be careful how we speak about this mystery. While we can say that Human Nature was assumed into the Trinity and we can say that God took flesh and we can say that the Logos took flesh. We cannot say, however, that the Godhood took flesh. We cannot say that the Father or the Spirit have flesh.

Agreed, but I just have one question. I had always though that before the incarnation the Son had one nature and after he had two. Are you saying that in non-temporality that the Son always had two natures? Or that because God is outside of time, when the incarnation happened in time, it also happened eternally outside of time?

Thank you for your response!

 

[Waiting]

Waiting,

Don’t you think God appreciates when we try to understand Him? I do I know my mind is limited and what I can understand is nothing compared to what God is but that does not mean that I am going to stop trying. I don’t plan to stop straining toward God with my whole heart *and *mind.

Peace to you,

Theresa

The more we concentrate on God, the closer we will get to Him, but some things can only frustrate you because they cannot be fully explained. The Trinity is one of those. Legend has it that St. Augustine, a truly great mind, spent a good deal of time trying to understand the Trinity. A child (an angel?) told him it would be easier to put the entire ocean into a small hole on the beach than to understand the Trinity. I probably told the story poorly, but you get the idea. Better to spend your time in the study of God on things that will be more profitable, such as prayers for peace, or for the Poor Souls in Purgatory, or maybe in a Bible study group.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jesus’s human nature was changeable. If we recognize Jesus human nature as part of God then part of God was changeable. What is wrong with this conclusion?

 

[KnightIHSV]

This is a very interesting question, thank you to all who have participated and answered this question.

 

[karebear92]

Jesus’s human nature was changeable. If we recognize Jesus human nature as part of God then part of God was changeable. What is wrong with this conclusion?

Well on the surface the problem is that God is unchangeable. If something is perfect and it changes it has to become either more perfect or less perfect. You can’t change perfection without it becoming less perfect.

I look forward to Mosher’s response.

 

[mosher]

Well on the surface the problem is that God is unchangeable. If something is perfect and it changes it has to become either more perfect or less perfect. You can’t change perfection without it becoming less perfect.

I look forward to Mosher’s response.

Agreed, but I just have one question. I had always though that before the incarnation the Son had one nature and after he had two. Are you saying that in non-temporality that the Son always had two natures? Or that because God is outside of time, when the incarnation happened in time, it also happened eternally outside of time?

Thank you for your response!

I’m suggesting that the latter response is what we can reasonably say. The collision of the temporal and non-temporal is a very tricky thing. This is why I think it is safer to speak about the relationship of the Trinity to the Incarnation from two different perspectives. This necessarily causes the question to focus on the subjective experience of God rather than God as such. From the human temporal perspective there seems to be a change in God at the Incarnation. From God’s perspective there is no change because he is not subject to temporality. Thus, the Incarnation was an eternal reality for God from his perspective. I will need to review how Aquinas approaches this question to see if I can add any further light to the discussion.

This question does infringe upon the notion of God’s perfection. Yet, we must understand what we mean by the term ‘perfection’. It is a tendency of the modern mind to think of perfection in terms of quantity. If a glass is filled to capacity we think of it as perfectly filled. If it is not filled to capacity it is imperfectly filled. In other words we think of perfection in terms of a transition from activity to rest. However, the type of perfection that we are considering when we speak of the nature of something is a perfection according to that nature. It is a consideration of a movement from rest to act - potency to actuality. Thus, when we speak about God’s nature being perfect we do not say that in lacking a human nature that God is imperfect. This is because it is not a perfection of the Divine Nature to possess the human nature. God is already and always in a “state” of complete actuality. There is no potency to be actualized. Thus, when the Divine Logos assumed human nature it did not add to or subtract from the Divine Nature. Rather, a quality of another kind was united to the Divine Nature in the person of the Son.

 

[karebear92]

I’m suggesting that the latter response is what we can reasonably say. The collision of the temporal and non-temporal is a very tricky thing. This is why I think it is safer to speak about the relationship of the Trinity to the Incarnation from two different perspectives. This necessarily causes the question to focus on the subjective experience of God rather than God as such. From the human temporal perspective there seems to be a change in God at the Incarnation. From God’s perspective there is no change because he is not subject to temporality. Thus, the Incarnation was an eternal reality for God from his perspective. I will need to review how Aquinas approaches this question to see if I can add any further light to the discussion.

This question does infringe upon the notion of God’s perfection. Yet, we must understand what we mean by the term ‘perfection’. It is a tendency of the modern mind to think of perfection in terms of quantity. If a glass is filled to capacity we think of it as perfectly filled. If it is not filled to capacity it is imperfectly filled. In other words we think of perfection in terms of a transition from activity to rest. However, the type of perfection that we are considering when we speak of the nature of something is a perfection according to that nature. It is a consideration of a movement from rest to act - potency to actuality. Thus, when we speak about God’s nature being perfect we do not say that in lacking a human nature that God is imperfect. This is because it is not a perfection of the Divine Nature to possess the human nature. God is already and always in a “state” of complete actuality. There is no potency to be actualized. Thus, when the Divine Logos assumed human nature it did not add to or subtract from the Divine Nature. Rather, a quality of another kind was united to the Divine Nature in the person of the Son.

Very enlightening. Thank you!