Does Jesus have two consciousnesses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
Jesus has two natures, two wills, two intellects, two minds, yet he is one “person” (hypostasis). If Christ has two minds, then that must mean he has two levels of conscious experience, two qualias. Doesn’t that mean he is two persons then, not in the sense of being two hypostases, but in the modern usage of the word which usually denotes individual and separate qualia or modes of subjective experience.
 
Last edited:
There was a heresy about this on the early centuries. One of the Councils confessed Jesus to be both human and Divine , in response.
 
Yes, I am professing the doctrine put out at Ephesus and and Chalcedon, don’t confuse what I am saying with Nestorianism.
 
Last edited:
Are you approaching high Christology and low Christology?
 
The way I perceive all of this, and I pray I have not erred in my understanding (and if I have erred, I will immediately recant, though I do not believe myself to be in error since I see no other way of understanding this), that the hypostases of the Trinity are three underlying realities of God each distinct relationally yet united by one ousia and thus possess one mind, one will, and one intellect. The second hypostasis, known by various titles such as Wisdom, the Word, and the Son, all of which are uniquely possessed in its mode of reality, extended itself to human nature, becoming man, and thus creating a link or a chain uniting both the human nature of Christ and the divine nature of Christ. Christ in his fullness, both God nature and human nature, is the Son, the second hypostasis, one of the three underlying realities of God. In fact, this is why we worship the human nature of Christ, because in a sense it too is God, not because the human nature has in anyway become absorbed into the divine nature/ousia, but because the Son as the second hypostasis is a fundamental reality of God. And of course, if it wasn’t for the ousia, then we would not worship the human nature, and the Son would not be God.
 
Last edited:
Since we’re speaking of the hypostatic union, then were are speaking about low and high christology.
 
I understand both, and as I have already said, we are speaking of both the humanity and the divine nature of Christ because this is about the hypostatic union, and so this is both low and high Christology.
 
Ok… I don’t understand where you’re even going with all of this. This is off topic from the original subject.
 
I will leave it the discussion since I thought you were asking about the Divine and human nature’s of Jesus . I am not sure if you are asking if Jesus is two people?

Perhaps @Usige

Might understand your question?
 
Last edited:
Well you make this interesting by mixing two meanings of a single word “person”. 🙂

So by your statement you are not speaking about a Nestorian dyoprosopic view (i.e. a junction of two divided human and divine prosopoa), but are rather speaking about a more psychological definition of person based on our experience of the world. Am I following your question correctly?

If that is the case I don’t think there are two distinct qualia because the hypostatic union is complete. By that I mean that you cannot separate the divine from the man. While Chirist’s dual natures do not mix, they still comprise the totality of who he is. If his subjective experiences were wholly distinct and separate, it would imply that Christ experienced suffering on the cross in distinct ways as a man and/or in his divine nature.This starts flirting with some dangerous ground like He only suffered in His human nature, but not His divine nature as the divine frame of reference might not include physical pain.

Conscience is also about self realization, so if the two minds were not united then how could the human conscience of Christ know He existed before Abraham and all that entailed? While not completely correct, I think the concept of communicatio idiomatum could apply here. When Christ say “I am” the self realization must include both his knowledge of his human nature as well as his divine nature. If the two nature’s, and thereby conscience, were not united then it would seem that he would have exhibited something more akin to multiple personality disorder. For instance, only His divine nature would have beheld the Beatific Vision but that does not appear to be the case.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that my philosophical chops are weak, but the implications of Christ experiencing the world in two distinct and unrelated ways leads us too close to some of the 5th century heresies. Maybe you might call it Semi-Nestorianism.
 
Last edited:
thephilosopher6 said:
Jesus has two natures, two wills, two intellects, two minds, yet he is one “person” (hypostasis). If Christ has two minds, then that must mean he has two levels of conscious experience, two qualias. Doesn’t that mean he is two persons then, not in the sense of being two hypostases, but in the modern usage of the word which usually denotes individual and separate qualia or modes of subjective experience.
Click to expand...
One mind one person since identity is a property of mind. You could however experience different things at the same time by having different focal focuses.
 
You have correctly assessed my thought. Now, the Church teaches that Christ has two minds and thus that encompasses two wills and two intellects. If he has two minds, shouldn’t he then have two qualias? If we are to say he has one, then wouldn’t that be Monothelitism bordering on Monophysitism? Because then we would have to say that either Christ’s human mind and divine mind mixed into one, or that the human mind was absorbed wholly into the divine mind or vice versa. Aquinas teaches that Christ has both human knowledge and divine knowledge.
…the Son of God assumed an entire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore it behooved Him to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account of the soul’s perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like “a tablet on which nothing is written,” and yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said De Anima iii, 18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of God should assume, not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature, since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since everything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. ii, 17, Christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had not understood by it; and this pertains to created knowledge. Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, viz. that whereby we naturally know first principles; since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect. Now nothing natural was wanting to Christ, since He took the whole human nature, as stated above (Article 5). And hence the Sixth Council [Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4] condemned the opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms." - Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 9
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4009.htm
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Now, the Church teaches that Christ has two minds and thus that encompasses two wills and two intellects.
Click to expand...
Does the Church actually State Jesus has two minds?

Or does the Church state , as in your document, that Jesus has a perfect human nature?

Does nature = mind?
 
Yes, the Church actually teaches Christ has two minds. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111
Click to expand...
Interestingly I found this written by EWTN:
In Christ, as we know through Revelation and faith, there are two natures,
one divine, the other human. That is, there are two principles of
operation. Consequently, consciousness is immediately a quality of the
nature, there are two consciousnesses in Christ: one divine, the other
human.
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/DOUBLE.TXT

The Church teaches that his human nature was infused with many supernatural qualities and that he was also able to experience the beatific vision, but his human intellect is not the same as his divine intellect.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Jesus has two natures, two wills, two intellects, two minds, yet he is one “person” (hypostasis). If Christ has two minds, then that must mean he has two levels of conscious experience, two qualias. Doesn’t that mean he is two persons then, not in the sense of being two hypostases, but in the modern usage of the word which usually denotes individual and separate qualia or modes of subjective experience.
Click to expand...
Short answer: one person, two qualia

Long answer:

I think that if this question were to arise in the context of a modern day version of the early Councils, the answer would be a “yes.”

Each time we go deeper into the Person and Natures questions/discussions about Christ, the conclusion is always that He has two of each—two natures, two wills, two intellects, two operations.

I’ve never encountered the word “qualias” before, so I’m working from your definition of “modes of subjective experience.” It’s not a theological term. I also did some very quick internet searches for definitions and more info.

I think it would be inevitable given that those earlier questions are now considered to be solved and beyond further doubt that we must answer the question of qualia with a yes. After all, a negative answer would be a contradiction of what we already do know.

So I think it’s safe to say that if ever the question of qualia in the person of Christ would arise in a theological context, the answer would have to be a yes. Of course, the two qualia would never be opposed to each other and would always be in harmony and agreement with each other.

If anyone should teach the heresy of monoqualiism, let him be anathema!
 
Thank you Father, this is indeed my thinking from what I have gathered from the teachings of the Church and my reading of Aquinas.
 
Just to clarify, for anyone who doesn’t understand what qualia is, it is the unique subjective experience each of us have, it’s what consciousness itself is, qualia is what it’s like to be, it is you, and anyone who is not a philosophical zombie possess qualia.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top