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

[Waiting]

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.

God cannot change. He knew from all eternity that you would be conceived and of His relationshhip with you.

 

[mosher]

1. 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.

Blessings,

Theresa

I’ll try and put this a simply as possible. Each existing thing is of one kind or another. Each kind can admit only certain qualities. These are the qualities consistent with its nature. For instance, it is consistent with human nature to possess a rational soul (intellect and will) although it is not consistent with a tree to have a rational soul. If we were to find a tree with a rational soul then it would no longer be a tree. It was be an Ent … but I digress into the realm of absurd geekiness. But, so it is with God. It is not consistent with the nature of God to possess human limitations. Human nature, which is bound-up with these limitations, cannot be other than it is. God, however, is of a different kind/nature than any human or all of humanity combined. Thus, the Incarnation is a unity of two natures (of a different kind) in the one person of Jesus. Thus, Jesus is not some hybrid of Divine Nature and Human Nature. Rather, he is equally both.

I have the same difficulty.

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

Relation used in this context is a poor word in the English language. A better way to think about it is simply that God is not constrained by his creation. Relation implies some lack in the thing related. Yet, God lacks no perfection.

I think that in both issues here we should focus on the relationship between essence and existence. We tend to think of essences (natures) as they way in which existence (being) is lived out by some subsistent (actual being). So, we gain a picture of a layered cake. The cake (the subsistent) is composed of cake (existence) and frosting of some sort (essence). Yet, this is exactly the opposite of what is really happening and misses the whole point of making the essence/existence distinction. Aquinas discovered this in his mature thought.

Existence is limitless superabundance of being, simply. The essence is that which limits the way in which existence presents itself in a subsistent. Thus, when Aquinas notes that God’s essence and existence are the same he is saying that God is existence without any constraint or limit. As contingent beings, we participate in existence in a limited way. The limiting principle of our existence is our essence. It is further limited by the possession or lack of the full measure of perfections according to our essence/nature. So, perhaps a better visual analogy (remembering that all analogies fail) is to think of existence as a geyser of water and a particular essence being a unique fountain caping that geyser regulating its flow according to the shape and design of the fountain. With God there is no fountain capping the geyser.

 

[karebear92]

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"!

This is factually inaccurate regarding the trinity. They didn’t even address the Holy Spirit in the council of Nicaea, but what exactly is your point. I can explain to you why the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit must all be God. It truly is the only rational way to think about them.

 

[Benadam]

A consideration on the subject.
Unlike any other creature human nature encompasses the entire creation.
Not animals nor angels can claim such.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Mankind naturally encompasses the spiritual and the material or, the heavens and the earth in his very being.

This is like God in a way no other creature is.

This mystery leads to the hypostatic union on the cosmic scale. The union of heaven and earth.

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Thus the natural boundaries of human nature were not exceeded when through the Son the Father created.The boundaries of human nature are the boundaries of creation it’self.

The entire creation is encompassed in the very being of human and divine life.

 

[LayingHands]

This is factually inaccurate regarding the trinity. They didn’t even address the Holy Spirit in the council of Nicaea, but what exactly is your point. I can explain to you why the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit must all be God. It truly is the only rational way to think about them.

Rational? …as regards to True Spiritual Knowledge?

Logical and man made as confusing and having no basis to changing that GOD is the Father, the Creator of the Cosmic Universes and Our Lord Jesus Christ is His SON!

Why change to confuse all humanity with this Montanus “New Prophecy” Trinity concept?

My point is, this change of the holy biblical story was never meant to change…those changes are man made, man created…and has confused humanity for thousands of years now.

The simplicity of GOD’s Son’s message became convoluted and confusing, when had it stayed as relayed by Jesus, to His diciples, of His Father GOD’s Redemption and Mercy for our Eternal Lives…many, many, many human beings would have stayed with the Church, having clear understanding of the messages, laws and power of both, GOD and His Son.

 

[Benadam]

Rational? …as regards to True Spiritual Knowledge?

Logical and man made as confusing and having no basis to changing that GOD is the Father, the Creator of the Cosmic Universes and Our Lord Jesus Christ is His SON!

Why change to confuse all humanity with this Montanus “New Prophecy” Trinity concept?

My point is, this change of the holy biblical story was never meant to change…those changes are man made, man created…and has confused humanity for thousands of years now.

The simplicity of GOD’s Son’s message became convoluted and confusing, when had it stayed as relayed by Jesus, to His diciples, of His Father GOD’s Redemption and Mercy for our Eternal Lives…many, many, many human beings would have stayed with the Church, having clear understanding of the messages, laws and power of both, GOD and His Son.

I’m not sure i’m understanding your posts.

We know the Trinity because sometimes when the Father’s spoke of God sometimes they spoke of the Holy Spirit, sometimes they were refering to the Father, and sometimes when describing what God does they were teaching about Jesus.

The Trinity wasn’t made explicit by the Apostles but it is evident by what they taught that they knew intuitively.
It’s not easily grasped and so difficult to express with words. Now we know it is inexpressable. Our attempts often confound more than clarify.

Is it no wonder that the Apostles weren’t explicit about the Trinity?

I’m sorry , three human beings seized by some spirit could not be the origin of something so profound. The Trinity was revealed by Jesus. Jesus let us have a peek at the internal conversation of God. The Apostles recieved this from Christ but having no words to express such a revelation it remained a matter the faithfull knew intuitively.

 

[LayingHands]

I’m not sure i’m understanding your posts.

We know the Trinity because sometimes when the Father’s spoke of God sometimes they spoke of the Holy Spirit, sometimes they were refering to the Father, and sometimes when describing what God does they were teaching about Jesus.

The Trinity wasn’t made explicit by the Apostles but it is evident by what they taught that they knew intuitively.
It’s not easily grasped and so difficult to express with words. Now we know it is inexpressable. Our attempts often confound more than clarify.

Is it no wonder that the Apostles weren’t explicit about the Trinity?

I’m sorry , three human beings seized by some spirit could not be the origin of something so profound. The Trinity was revealed by Jesus. Jesus let us have a peek at the internal conversation of God. The Apostles recieved this from Christ but having no words to express such a revelation it remained a matter the faithfull knew intuitively.

I’m sorry also because you are proving my point and confusion reigns purposely, while humanity needs the simplicity of finding GOD through His Son, so they may all conciously choose to go back home to GODHEAD.

To continue toting the Montanist “New Prophecy” and Tertullian’s expanded “Trinity” as Implied or intuitive, goes against the prior New Testament teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Disciples…

 

[mosher]

I’m sorry also because you are proving my point and confusion reigns purposely, while humanity needs the simplicity of finding GOD through His Son, so they may all conciously choose to go back home to GODHEAD.

To continue toting the Montanist “New Prophecy” and Tertullian’s expanded “Trinity” as Implied or intuitive, goes against the prior New Testament teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Disciples…

What are you even talking about?

I’m getting nervous about your anti-intellectualism. It is getting a bit gnostic.

Please explain what you are saying clearly so that it is understandable.

 

[Jaaanosik]

What are you even talking about?

I’m getting nervous about your anti-intellectualism. It is getting a bit gnostic.

Please explain what you are saying clearly so that it is understandable.

Not to worry much. It’s a forum. People say/type all kind of things.

 

[LayingHands]

What are you even talking about?

I’m getting nervous about your anti-intellectualism. It is getting a bit gnostic.

Please explain what you are saying clearly so that it is understandable.

Best to start at the beginning…and study some too. I have given you all the terms to “prove all things” to yourself.

Peace and Merry Christ Mass

 

[Theresagnes]

I am beginning to realize, with the help of many of you, that my question was flawed because I was *visualizing *the scenario of Jesus’ body being incorporated into God. In other words, I was imagining a blob of universe and a blob of God (infinity) interacting with each other. I was thinking of the issue spatially.

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?

I would like to discuss this further. I think you are right, this is really the question beneath my question.

Existence is limitless superabundance of being, simply. The essence is that which limits the way in which existence presents itself in a subsistent. Thus, when Aquinas notes that God’s essence and existence are the same he is saying that God is existence without any constraint or limit. As contingent beings, we participate in existence in a limited way. The limiting principle of our existence is our essence. It is further limited by the possession or lack of the full measure of perfections according to our essence/nature. So, perhaps a better visual analogy (remembering that all analogies fail) is to think of existence as a geyser of water and a particular essence being a unique fountain caping that geyser regulating its flow according to the shape and design of the fountain. With God there is no fountain capping the geyser.

Br. Gabriel, your comments really helped me to understand where my question was flawed but I am not sure if I understand completely. It makes sense to me that in God existence and essence are the same. But if this is the case, then how can I explain how the Christian point of view differs from pantheism? If God’s existence is unlimited, how are we not part of the Godhead? (Am I thinking too spatially again?)

Many thanks for all the responses I have received so far. This has been so helpful for me and truly comes at an appropriate time!

Blessed Christmas,

Theresa

 

[Jaaanosik]

I am beginning to realize, with the help of many of you, that my question was flawed because I was *visualizing *the scenario of Jesus’ body being incorporated into God. In other words, I was imagining a blob of universe and a blob of God (infinity) interacting with each other. I was thinking of the issue spatially.

I would like to discuss this further. I think you are right, this is really the question beneath my question.

Br. Gabriel, your comments really helped me to understand where my question was flawed but I am not sure if I understand completely. It makes sense to me that in God existence and essence are the same. But if this is the case, then how can I explain how the Christian point of view differs from pantheism? If God’s existence is unlimited, how are we not part of the Godhead? (Am I thinking too spatially again?)

Many thanks for all the responses I have received so far. This has been so helpful for me and truly comes at an appropriate time!

Blessed Christmas,

Theresa

Theresa,
this is what helps me:
God has no dimensions.
Any God’s creation has dimensions.

We can not be part of God because we have dimensions.
The Holy Spirit can form/touch a matter/dimensions. He formed Jesus’s human nature.
The Holy Spirit is a link between Jesus’s human nature, His human soul and His divine nature.

Jano