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

[Jaaanosik]

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.

Good points on the Divine Nature.
Is the “the quality of another kind” God or it’s not?

 

[levinas12]

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.

The question whether the Incarnation introduces a change in the life of the Trinity is a profound one (and very apt at this time of year). One way of looking at it revolves around what has been called the Christian distinction between God and the world. As Anselm pointed out, God without the world is just as “great” as God with the world. In other words, God doesn’t need the world to be God.

Your quote provides an excellent summary of this.

Pursuing this thought further, one can say that God is not one entity among other entities, not one nature among other natures. An entity has boundaries; a nature has limits. A lion is different from an elephant. This difference is based on a real relation between the lion and the elephant.

God does not have a real relation to the world. It’s not as if there is a superset of everything in the world plus God. God is not a member of any set of entities.

Additionally, things are other than each other and other than God. Things have a real relation to each other and to God. But God is not other than things in the way things are other than each other, and other than God. Otherness here is not symmetric.

Things can be “other” but God cannot be other because God does not have a real relation to things. Otherwise, if there were such a real relation, God would somehow be limited by the other things. His Essence would stand over against the essences of everything in the world.

But His Essence is the same as His Esse. God’s nature does not “limit” esse - it is simply esse subsistens, that is, esse unlimited.

All of this is taken from Aquinas.

When the second Person of the Trinity “assumed” human nature, this did not impose a limit on the Second Person’s esse, and thus did not represents a real change in God. Remember that the Second Person’s esse is the same as the Father’s esse, the Holy Spirit’s esse. God has just one esse. There can’t be two different esses subsistens.

So Jesus’s human nature does not limit His esse the way a lion’s nature limits the lion’s esse. And, if His esse is not limited, and is the same esse as the Father’s and the Holy Spirit’s, then, after the Incarnation, there is no change in the life of the Trinity.

But there is a big change for us because we can now be taken up into the life of the Trinity itself because Jesus has provided the ticket of admittance for human nature. We can be “divinized” (per the offertory of the Mass). This is the ultimate meaning of Christmas.

 

[levinas12]

And our “going” inside the Trinity is not a change in God, just in us.

I hope I haven’t committed a heresy in these postings. They say you can’t talk about the Trinity for more than 5 minutes without straying.

Because, of course, it is a great mystery beyond the grasp of human reason. But this does not mean that it is contradictory. It just means that the Greek metaphysical concepts at some point “buckle” when speaking of Jesus and the Trinity.

 

[LayingHands]

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

Theresa,
This was the usual response given when your questions cannot be answered without continuing confusion…as a cradle Catholic, I have heard it many times, and yes, it is good to ask these questions because Jesus said to “Prove ALL things” and I like you have continued this practice, for over 40 years.

The Trinity is a man created theology and concept…Prior to 325 AD, GOD was the Father, The One Almighty GOD and Our Lord Jesus Christ, is His SON, as per the New Testament of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…certainly Jesus always deferred to His Father GOD…however, there was a man by the name of Tertullian, who proposed the formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

During the 381AD Creed, the Tripartite was adopted in structure.

Tertullian is today considered the Founder of Western theology, the Father of Latin Christianity and originated and advanced this oldest extant, latin written, and used the term, “Trinity”…Jesus, by this idealized Trinity became 3 Persons and ! substance…and no longer, only, the SON of GOD.

 

[levinas12]

Theresa,
This was the usual response given when your questions cannot be answered without continuing confusion…as a cradle Catholic, I have heard it many times, and yes, it is good to ask these questions because Jesus said to “Prove ALL things” and I like you have continued this practice, for over 40 years.

The Trinity is a man created theology and concept…Prior to 325 AD, GOD was the Father, The One Almighty GOD and Our Lord Jesus Christ, is His SON, as per the New Testament of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John…certainly Jesus always deferred to His Father GOD…however, there was a man by the name of Tertullian, who proposed the formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

During the 381AD Creed, the Tripartite was adopted in structure.

Tertullian is today considered the Founder of Western theology, the Father of Latin Christianity and originated and advanced this oldest extant, latin written, and used the term, “Trinity”…Jesus, by this idealized Trinity became 3 Persons and ! substance…and no longer, only, the SON of GOD.

Arius redux!

Remember what Jesus said … I and the Father are One …When you see Me, you see the Father …

 

[levinas12]

Things can be “other” but God cannot be other because God does not have a real relation to things.

All of this is taken from Aquinas.

But, you say, God has a real relation to things because He created them. The real relation is based on God’s efficient causality.

Ah, but God’s efficient causality is not like Aristotle’s efficient causality. God’s efficient causality does not actualize a potentiality in God.

And God does not stand over against what He has efficiently caused … as a worldly cause stands over against its “effect”.

God’s efficient causality does not result in God’s having a real relation towards the creature, although it does result in a creature having a real relation to God. Again, real relation in this one instance is not symmetric.

This is what happens when you push too hard on Aristotle’s metaphysics.

Aquinas invokes analogy to get around this difficulty.

At this point, it would be wise to summon the heavy hitters in the Thomist camp.

 

[LayingHands]

But, you say, God has a real relation to things because He created them. The real relation is based on God’s efficient causality.

Ah, but God’s efficient causality is not like Aristotle’s efficient causality. God’s efficient causality does not actualize a potentiality in God.

And God does not stand over against what He has efficiently caused … as a worldly cause stands over against its “effect”.

God’s efficient causality does not result in God’s having a real relation towards the creature, although it does result in a creature having a real relation to God. Again, real relation in this one instance is not symmetric.

This is what happens when you push too hard on Aristotle’s metaphysics.

Aquinas invokes analogy to get around this difficulty.

At this point, it would be wise to summon the heavy hitters in the Thomist camp.

Ow…GOD’s relationship to His creature?

GOD has placed a portion of Himself, a spark of His lighted effulgence, within every living entities HEART. This spark is your Spiritsoul…which animates the matter of this being, your current body.

GOD is the Supersoul…did you ever wonder how He knows everything that you think, all your running, deepest, thoughts…those spoken aloud or silently within…He sees everything you do, everything you desire and have willed for…in goodness or in evil. He records it ALL…

Your Spiritsoul is ETERNAL and does not ever die, but, when this current HUMAN body dies and your Spiritsoul leaves through the top crown of your head, the Powers assigned by GOD, will either ascend your Spiritsoul towards GOD’s effulgence as His LIGHT…OR descend your Spiritsoul into the darkness for punishment.

He knows ALL, because He is sitting inside your Heart…

 

[LayingHands]

Arius redux!

Remember what Jesus said … I and the Father are One …When you see Me, you see the Father …

Ah well, at least you remembered Bishop Arius and the Arian controversy declaring Our Lord Jesus Christ as Divine because GOD had Created Him, as His SON!

(Except this made Jesus appear Less than His Father, GOD!)

During the 325 AD Nicene Creed (correct belief), Tertulian’s Trinity was adopted by 318 Fathers…at first the Trinity structure was rejected as heresy by the church at large, but, later it was accepted as Christian Orthodoxy.

Our Lord Jesus said many wonderful and worshipful words about GOD, in the New Testament, but He never said ANYTHING about man re-creating His Church in combining Him, changing Him, from the Son of GOD…into a Trinitarian theology of 3 Persons, 1 Substance!

So, Bishop Arius’s doctrine of the Divine SON of GOD was out…and Tertulian’s Tripartite Structure was adopted…then in 381 AD, another revision of the Trinity was FOREVER adopted by the First Council of Constantinople.

This man created Creed, is to this day, responsible for the ripping apart of the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches…

 

[Benadam]

The flesh of Jesus is the flesh of His Mother.

There is a unity that is exclusive to Divine nature. It’s natural to divine nature to have always been. Uncreated. The Body of Jesus is not a part of the Trinity in that respect. The Body of Jesus is divinized and participates in divine life but is not divine by nature. The unity Jesus’ humanity enjoys with the Father is the unity possible now for all human life. But there is a unity that can only happen to Jesus he expressed in the passage below

And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.

The fulfillment of created life is to glorify God. Only God can ask to be glorified by God. This Glory will divinize human flesh but that doesn’t make it naturally divine.

 

[levinas12]

This Glory will divinize human flesh but that doesn’t make it naturally divine.

Agreed.

But isn’t it amazing that Jesus’ divine nature did not obliterate His human nature or at least create a hybrid?

But this didn’t happen. Jesus is not a demigod, half-human, half-divine. He is fully human and fully divine … with no mixing.

Somehow the divine nature didn’t disturb the natural order (see Silent Night)

It’s hard to imagine the human without sin but what a wonderful world this would be (see Louie Armstrong) !!

Christmas is the guarantee that this wonderful world is coming … like a slow train coming round the bend (see Bob Dylan).

ERO CRAS - “I will be there tomorrow” - see the first letters of the words of the Latin O Antiphons (or, what is the same, and perhaps more familiar, the first letters of the words in the verses of the Latin version of O Come, O Come, Emmanuel).

Emmanuel, Rex, Oriens, Clavis, Radix, Adonai, Sapientia

.

 

[Benadam]

Agreed.

But isn’t it amazing that Jesus’ divine nature did not obliterate his human nature or at least create a hybrid? Somehow the divine nature doesn’t disturb the natural order here. Jesus is truly human (but without sin).

It’s hard to imagine the human without sin but, in the words of Louie Armstrong, what a wonderful world this would be!

And Christmas is the guarantee that this wonderful world is coming … in Bob Dylan’s words, like a slow train round the bend.

ERO CRAS - “I will be there tomorrow” - the anagram hidden in the first words of the Latin O Antiphons (or, what is the same, and perhaps more familiar, the first words in the verses of the Latin version of O Come, O Come, Emmanuel).

Handel was correcto mundo when he wrote the Hallelujah chorus of the Messiah.

You got that spot on. Human life not subject to earthly life that ends in death would be profoundly different. No graveyards, no death seperating earthly life from the community in heaven. No childhood because the powers of nature serve man. Having a body that doesn’t die means experiencing what life is like that isn’t burdened by the need to survive.

Jesus is the ‘light’ fully human fully God. Real light, the kind we see, offers an earthly insight I think. Light was thought to be a wave by many and a particle by others for ever the debate went on. turns out light is a particle and a wave. Not part particle part wave or sometimes particle sometimes wave. Light is always a wave and a particle. fully wave fully particle edit. how light is like this is a mystery too.

 

[Theresagnes]

This has been so enlightening. I am so thankful to everyone who has participated. I am not as well versed in philosophy and theology as many of you but what I have understood has been really helpful.

I just want to make sure I am understanding what has been said and I am wondering if everyone will agree with these statements:

1. According to Benadam, Jesus’ body is not part of the Trinity insofar as it is made of a creature’s (Mary’s) genetic material. (This was my original assumption and the source of my confusion)
2. According to Br. Gabriel “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.” From what I can understand this means that Jesus’ human nature (and body) was united to the 2nd person of the Trinity in an intimate way but this did not change the nature of God, nor add anything to his Divine nature. Like Jaaanosik, I would be interested in hearing more from Br. Gabriel about this “quality of another kind” - I think it would be enlightening.
3. Levinas12, your post was a bit above my head but fascinating. This concept is one that I am not sure I can fathom - “God does not have a real relation to the world. It’s not as if there is a superset of everything in the world plus God. God is not a member of any set of entities.” However, it was *really *helpful for me to think of Jesus’ essence as unlimited, therefore uniting the human nature to his divine nature could not change what was already unlimited.

I think this quote from Levinas12 really sums up a lot “And our “going” inside the Trinity is not a change in God, just in us.”

So, basically what I derive from all of this is that by using the word “into” the Catechism is trying to communicate the intimacy of the connection between God and human nature after the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human flesh and ascended into heaven after the resurrection. In time, we experience this as a new participation in the divine life - through the intimate connection between God and human nature. In a timeless sense, our human nature was always intimately united to God, particularly to the Second Person of the Trinity but we did not receive the benefit of this in time until he entered history, died and rose again to be with the Father.

Am I summing this up correctly?

Again, thank you all SO much for helping me to understand this.

Blessings,

Theresa

 

[Curious_Seed]

Certainly, the literal body He occupied prior to the resurrection, as well as the transcendent one, after the resurrection, but prior to His Ascension, is not the body spoken of.

So, what body is being addressed?

I believe the body here means His Church.

The raising of Christ resulted in His Church being introduced into the Trinity.

 

[LayingHands]

Certainly, the literal body He occupied prior to the resurrection, as well as the transcendent one, after the resurrection, but prior to His Ascension, is not the body spoken of.

So, what body is being addressed?

I believe the body here means His Church.

The raising of Christ resulted in His Church being introduced into the Trinity.

Really, why is the “Trinity” still considered CREED (Correct Belief)???

Not only has it’s man made concept been relayed from early Christian history as originated and created by Man, in Tertullian…but I will prove to thee, woe to hypocrites, that it’s current and past Catholic (Universal) Church (s) use is both baseless and purposely confusing to GOD’s People.

I am going to take you further back into hypocrisy and sins regarding this Trinitarian structure…it’s name is “The New Prophecy” created through the belief of the Montanist.

Tertullian was the best defender of the New Prophecy of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla…3 human beings who were preaching that they were not just messengers of GOD, but, POSSESSED by GOD to declare GOD’s Prophecy!

Voila! The Trinitarian, Trinity structure was born, and was considered heresy, at first…until adopted formally in 325 AD, as the Nicene Creed!

If you would believe all you are told without “proving ALL things”, then you will consciously, willfully, believe that which goes against GOD the Father and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as His only begotten SON…

When Montanus proclaimed the New Prophecy in the home of Tertullian, he spoke in a frenzy and in the first person, AS GOD…Montanus said " I AM the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"!

 

[davidv]

Really, why is the “Trinity” still considered CREED (Correct Belief)???

Because it is true.

Not only has it’s man made concept been relayed from early Christian history as originated and created by Man, in Tertullian…but I will prove to thee, woe to hypocrites, that it’s current and past Catholic (Universal) Church (s) use is both baseless and purposely confusing to GOD’s People.

Nothing said here is remotely evidence that the Trinity is a manmade concept. It is a Divinely revealed truth.

I am going to take you further back into hypocrisy and sins regarding this Trinitarian structure…it’s name is “The New Prophecy” created through the belief of the Montanist.

Tertullian was the best defender of the New Prophecy of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla…3 human beings who were preaching that they were not just messengers of GOD, but, POSSESSED by GOD to declare GOD’s Prophecy!

Voila! The Trinitarian, Trinity structure was born, and was considered heresy, at first…until adopted formally in 325 AD, as the Nicene Creed!

If you would believe all you are told without “proving ALL things”, then you will consciously, willfully, believe that which goes against GOD the Father and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as His only begotten SON…

When Montanus proclaimed the New Prophecy in the home of Tertullian, he spoke in a frenzy and in the first person, AS GOD…Montanus said " I AM the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"!

 

[Curious_Seed]

Really, why is the “Trinity” still considered CREED (Correct Belief)???

Not only has it’s man made concept been relayed from early Christian history as originated and created by Man, in Tertullian…but I will prove to thee, woe to hypocrites, that it’s current and past Catholic (Universal) Church (s) use is both baseless and purposely confusing to GOD’s People.

I am going to take you further back into hypocrisy and sins regarding this Trinitarian structure…it’s name is “The New Prophecy” created through the belief of the Montanist.

Tertullian was the best defender of the New Prophecy of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla…3 human beings who were preaching that they were not just messengers of GOD, but, POSSESSED by GOD to declare GOD’s Prophecy!

Voila! The Trinitarian, Trinity structure was born, and was considered heresy, at first…until adopted formally in 325 AD, as the Nicene Creed!

If you would believe all you are told without “proving ALL things”, then you will consciously, willfully, believe that which goes against GOD the Father and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as His only begotten SON…

When Montanus proclaimed the New Prophecy in the home of Tertullian, he spoke in a frenzy and in the first person, AS GOD…Montanus said " I AM the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"!

Quite interesting.

Not relevant to the original question, but, quite interesting, nonetheless, . . . I think.

 

[LayingHands]

Quite interesting.

Not relevant to the original question, but, quite interesting, nonetheless, . . . I think.

Relevant…Humanity needs to know there is a truthful basis for a Divine Creed (Correct Belief) of a preached and teaching of a Holy Trinity, as 3 Persons and 1 Substance… proclaimed directly to the Disciples, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself…

In order to attempt to understand and believe…His BODY, was a part of the Montanist “New Prophecy” Trinity,

 

[Theresagnes]

Relevant…Humanity needs to know there is a truthful basis for a Divine Creed (Correct Belief) of a preached and teaching of a Holy Trinity, as 3 Persons and 1 Substance… proclaimed directly to the Disciples, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself…

In order to attempt to understand and believe…His BODY, was a part of the Montanist “New Prophecy” Trinity,

LayingHands,

Your posts are not really relevant to this thread. Please don’t derail what has been a really productive thread so far.

Peace,

Theresa

 

[LayingHands]

LayingHands,

Your posts are not really relevant to this thread. Please don’t derail what has been a really productive thread so far.

Peace,

Theresa

Unfortunately, as a new Catholic, you are responsible to “Prove All things” to yourself as instructed by Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament…it is easier to follow without question…keep real and you will find your way…you are asking all the right questions…Peace and Merry Christ Mass

 

[levinas12]

… This concept is one that I am not sure I can fathom - “God does not have a real relation to the world. It’s not as if there is a superset of everything in the world plus God. God is not a member of any set of entities.”

I have the same difficulty.

How can we say that God does not have a real relation to the world?

But this is the pivot of much theology.

We have a real relation to God. But God does not have a real relation to us.

How can this be - is not “real relation” symmetric?

But, if we say that God has a real relation to us … and, if at some point in the past, we did not exist and then began to exist … this would be saying that at some point God began to have a real relation (to something outside Him) which He did not have before … therefore, God underwent a real change … and that would seem to contradict His Immutability …

This is what makes theology interesting (interesting but not contradictory). There is a way of this aporia. Would you like to discuss it?

It would be in keeping with the Christmas spirit since the Incarnation is at the center of all this.