L
- Status
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Relevant & Serious Question: If the Godhead is of one will and intellect and three persons of such, and the persons are co-equal, and if Jesus was one person with two intellects and wills, one created (human) and one uncreated (God), was Jesus’ person uncreated? It sounds as if his person is sourced by the Second Person of the Trinity directly rather than a coming to be through creation as with a regular, created human person?
To put this question another way, to what degree was/is Jesus’ person related to humanity if he is only one person and his ‘personhood’ is sourced by the second-person of the Trinity rather than the result of a human intellect-and-will? It seems you can’t say his being one person is the result of the combination of both human intellect and will with divine intellect and will, because you’re then omitting the hypostatic union of the second Person of the Trinity, and you can’t say there are two persons of Jesus, only one person, as it is written within Church documents.
Anyone have any lucidity to offer?
To put this question another way, to what degree was/is Jesus’ person related to humanity if he is only one person and his ‘personhood’ is sourced by the second-person of the Trinity rather than the result of a human intellect-and-will? It seems you can’t say his being one person is the result of the combination of both human intellect and will with divine intellect and will, because you’re then omitting the hypostatic union of the second Person of the Trinity, and you can’t say there are two persons of Jesus, only one person, as it is written within Church documents.
Anyone have any lucidity to offer?
J
JimG
Guest
Jesus is one Person with two natures: divine and human. He is not a human person, he is a divine Person–the second Person of the Trinity. But: he is a human being because he has a human nature. That’s why theologians sometime speak of Jesus “as man” when acting in his human nature, or Jesus as God, when acting in his divine nature.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
So what you’re saying is human nature doesn’t include a human person?
P
PluniaZ
Guest
Good catch. Thank you.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
You need to cite authority for your position. Neither of us is wise enough to figure this out on our own.What is meant by equal is “identical in some degree and/or respect.” When we say the Father is equal to the Son, we mean in respect to Divinity and Substance, and when we say that the Father is not equal to the Son, we mean in respect to paternity and filiation.
And so what I’m saying is that this inequality or division between the Persons is inherently hierarchical, because begetting is active while being begotten is passive. We actually habitually recognize this, because we always, when listing the persons, put the Father first, followed by the Son.
I understand how seeing the word “unequal” can cause someone to automatically think of Arianism, but I invite you to reflect on what I wrote: a wise person looks not only at the words someone uses, but what they mean and intend by them. I find that a lot of disagreements between Christians, and honestly people in general, amount to little more than disagreements about what words are used, while in agreement with what reality the words signify, sharing the same intention in what is trying to be conveyed with the words
Christi pax.
meltzerboy
New member
How can the Trinity have three different minds? Wouldn’t that mean there are three gods and be contrary to Catholic teaching?
L
levinas12
Guest
A human person usually accompanies human nature. But not in Jesus’ case.
Although there is a dimension of mystery here, we can still try to unpack it the best we can with philosophical notions. In fact, Christological discussions can be very productive philosophically.
Consider the distinction between “human nature” and “human person”. John Doe has a “human nature”, in philosophical terminology, the “form” that provides the principle of operation for all of John’s activities (including metabolism and cognition and free will). The “form” in John is identical to the “form” in Tom and Sally and all other human beings - this same “form” is defined by “genus” and “specific difference” - John is a rational animal - and is the basis for the class of all human beings. We are now looking at John as John Doe qua human being.
What about John as a person? Now we are no longer dealing with the “form” or “nature” of a human being but with, you may say, a deeper reality which is unique and unrepeatable, not “shareable”, not the “same” with other human beings. Some philosophers have called this reality a “singularity” because “person” falls outside the traditional Aristotelian categories (substance and the Aristotelian accidents). We are now talking about John Doe qua John Doe, not qua human being. There is no genus and specific difference for a “person” qua “that person” - there is no class of John Does per se.
Even though “person” is distinct from “nature”, there is an ontological link between “person” and “nature”. A “person” needs a “nature” in order to be able to perform various activities.
One way of looking at all this is to say that “nature” responds to the “what” question and “person” to the “who” question.
In Jesus’ case, the “who” is the Second Person of the Trinity but the “what” is dual (Jesus can perform both “divine” and “human” activities). This is a oversimplification (“divine nature” has an analogous but different meaning than “nature” in creatures including human beings - so we can’t just say that Jesus simply has two “natures” with “nature” taken in a univocal sense).
In creatures, there is a real distinction between “nature” (“form”, “essence”) and “existence” (esse) - in God, there is no real distinction (God’s “essence” and God’s “esse” are the same because God is absolutely simple without any composition).
I better stop here before I get timed out … but let’s continue the discussion …
L
levinas12
Guest
postscript:
The “distinction” of “person” from “nature” is helpful in explaining the Church’s position on abortion. We say that the “person” is present in his or her “actuality” or “totality” at the moment of conception even though the “nature” has not been fully “fleshed out” (the nature is present as an actual final cause but is in process as a formal cause and efficient cause).
Also, this “distinction” between “person” and “nature” helps us understand what happens to a human being after death. The “person” of John Doe continues after death but his “human nature” (which also continues) cannot naturally perform certain activities in the absence of the human body (e.g., metabolism, perception). This doesn’t mean that John Doe is unaware or asleep - cognition and free will continue but these activities function differently in the absence of the human body. For this to happen, in my opinion, there has to be a supernatural intervention of some sort (some Catholic philosophers may disagree to some extent here - some argue that higher level cognitive activity (the agent intellect or nous) can continue “naturally” after death … but, in the natural absence of a mental species, such activity is somewhat obscure). And, of course, whatever limitations death may impose, these are remedied eventually by the resurrection of the body.
The “distinction” of “person” from “nature” is helpful in explaining the Church’s position on abortion. We say that the “person” is present in his or her “actuality” or “totality” at the moment of conception even though the “nature” has not been fully “fleshed out” (the nature is present as an actual final cause but is in process as a formal cause and efficient cause).
Also, this “distinction” between “person” and “nature” helps us understand what happens to a human being after death. The “person” of John Doe continues after death but his “human nature” (which also continues) cannot naturally perform certain activities in the absence of the human body (e.g., metabolism, perception). This doesn’t mean that John Doe is unaware or asleep - cognition and free will continue but these activities function differently in the absence of the human body. For this to happen, in my opinion, there has to be a supernatural intervention of some sort (some Catholic philosophers may disagree to some extent here - some argue that higher level cognitive activity (the agent intellect or nous) can continue “naturally” after death … but, in the natural absence of a mental species, such activity is somewhat obscure). And, of course, whatever limitations death may impose, these are remedied eventually by the resurrection of the body.
L
Lucretius
Guest
Here is a passage from St. John Damascene:
But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son(for through His agency He made the ages), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. And just as we do not say that fire is of one essence and light of another, so we cannot say that the Father is of one essence and the Son of another: but both are of one and the same essence. And just as we say that fire has brightness through the light proceeding from it, and do not consider the light of the fire as an instrument ministering to the fire, but rather as its natural force: so we say that the Father creates all that He creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving the Father’s ends, but as His natural and subsistential force.
This is exactly what I mean when I say the Father is greater than the Son, that the Father alone is unbegotten, while the Son (alone) is begotten. He goes on further down the article:
All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.
The Father’s existence is “prior” in the order of both of the Divine processions. This is not in a temporal sense, as the saint points out, but more in a logical or causal sense (and even then these are mere analogs).
I recommend everyone read the entire entry by St. John of Domascus for deeper understanding: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html
Christi pax.
A
Assyrian412
Guest
Yes they are but they still quite clearly admit that it is an acceptable interpretation as Jimmy Akin in his article there did not even mention the interoperation that denotes the verse to Christ’s humanity and Tim Staples gives two acceptable interpretations in the quote I gave you with the one I have been explaining the whole time being one of the options
A
Assyrian412
Guest
I would say yes it is accurate as long as you understand it in such a way that is well within the bounds of the creeds, dogmas, saints, and Church tradition. I have already explained what I meant extensively and there has been 0 objection to the meaning behind anything I have explained other than the words I have used.
And, like PluniaZ pointed out, this way of reading the text and these terms are a good tool for evangelizing Arians such as Jehovah Witnesses. However, I would strongly disagree with him when he implies that this is not useful for theological conversations amongst Catholics as it has sparked a very good conversation in this thread and is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:6 etc
A
Assyrian412
Guest
**"What is meant by equal is “identical in some degree and/or respect.” When we say the Father is equal to the Son, we mean in respect to Divinity and Substance, and when we say that the Father is not equal to the Son, we mean in respect to paternity and filiation.
And so what I’m saying is that this inequality or division between the Persons is inherently hierarchical, because begetting is active while being begotten is passive. We actually habitually recognize this, because we always, when listing the persons, put the Father first, followed by the Son." ** -Lucretius
This is a perfect explanation.
Like I have been saying, Arius and Origen + other heretics associated with subordinationism were denying that Christ is equal in substance to the Father and/or that Christ is eternal. The Creeds were written in response to this. The Creeds are accurate and must be adhered to; they give no reason to throw traditional interpretations of certain verses/texts or traditions preserved by great Saints and modern apologetics within the Church away.
And so what I’m saying is that this inequality or division between the Persons is inherently hierarchical, because begetting is active while being begotten is passive. We actually habitually recognize this, because we always, when listing the persons, put the Father first, followed by the Son." ** -Lucretius
This is a perfect explanation.
Like I have been saying, Arius and Origen + other heretics associated with subordinationism were denying that Christ is equal in substance to the Father and/or that Christ is eternal. The Creeds were written in response to this. The Creeds are accurate and must be adhered to; they give no reason to throw traditional interpretations of certain verses/texts or traditions preserved by great Saints and modern apologetics within the Church away.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
I think you’re misreading Damascus. He’s not actually asserting those positions, or urging anyone to use them. He’s providing a point of rebuttal to heretics who point out John 14:28: “The Father is greater than I.”
It is also in the beginning of his discussion of the persons. He still hasn’t gotten to the Holy Spirit yet. Following his discussion of each person, he goes on to express his great explanation of the Most Holy Trinity:
“For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference.”
orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I
P
PluniaZ
Guest
No. The only tradition you’ve cited is the ante-Nicene Fathers, and I’ve already provided a link from the Vatican’s International Theological Commission saying that the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers was (1) inadequate and (2) latent with subordinationism. The fact that there is a 1700 year gap between the Apologists and today where no orthodox theologian says the Son is subordinate to the Father ought to tell you something.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html
Akin and Staples do not have the authority to make up new doctrines. They are not authorities on this matter. They are apologists trying to help Jehovah’s Witnesses come to the truth. You need to cite a real theologian or church council.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
But even such an “internal” relation must be denied by divine simplicity. The only reason we have a north/south is because there is a bit of the earth (the north pole) that is different than some other part of the earth (the south pole.) If the earth did not have any bits that were actually different there could be no such north/south relation, and we could not have *any *internal relations.
A
Assyrian412
Guest
“But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son(for through His agency He made the ages), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. And just as we do not say that fire is of one essence and light of another, so we cannot say that the Father is of one essence and the Son of another: but both are of one and the same essence. And just as we say that fire has brightness through the light proceeding from it, and do not consider the light of the fire as an instrument ministering to the fire, but rather as its natural force: so we say that the Father creates all that He creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving the Father’s ends, but as His natural and subsistential force.”
I’m not sure what you are getting out of this. Obviously it is a rebuttal but he is not making things up here. According to Damascus and many other saints as well as many modern apologists, “greater” can mean exactly what he explains here… he clearly says “WE mean by this” and then gives the same explanation I have been giving… notice how he defends this position by clarifying that the word greater does not mean there is a difference in substance/nature as this would be heresy… but he allows for “greater” to refer to causation ie the Father as the origin of the Son…
As for this…
“For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: **that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. **But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to get across with this quote as it does not contradict what I am saying in the least bit.
Why would an apologist or Saint use the word “greater” a certain way for a rebuttal if it could not actually be understood in such a way? The rebuttal would then be fixing one heresy and leading the heretic into another which is not the case here… You keep claiming that it is just a rebuttal and so it does not mean we should use this language but if it is a correction of somebody’s mistake there is no issue in using the correction… because a correction would be correct…
As for the ante-nicene Fathers, it is obvious that many of them were influenced by pagan philosophy very similar to how Philo of Alexandria was but this does not nullify all that they have to say. Especially when it does not contradict any dogma… Nobody is making up “new doctrines” here. I have cited biblical evidence, ancient interpretations, modern apologists, Saints have been cited, and you have already admitted to agreeing with what I have to say minus the words I have used…
P
PluniaZ
Guest
The fact is that Damascus does not use the expression “greater than” or urge anyone to use that expression. He says, “if we say” and even less committally, “when we heard it said.” He never goes on to use “greater” or “subordinate” to describe the relations of the Trinity. And he has not yet gotten to the Incarnation, which comes in Book III.
Saint Thomas Aquinas read Damascene but still concludes that the expression, “greater than” should be understood in terms of Christ’s human nature:
“These words are to be understood of Christ’s human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm
The Athanasian Creed is explicit:
“And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”
“Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.”
newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
The only support for your position consists of: (1) ante-Nicene Fathers who have been directly rebutted by the Vatican, (2) two subjunctive clauses in Damascene, and (3) 21st Century apologetics against Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Your position is contradicted by (1) every creed and council and (2) Thomas Aquinas.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
There were other Fathers who were not Ante-Nicene who have asserted that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of being the cause of the Son. For example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus made this assertion in his Theological Orations.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
Cite please.
- Status