Dual natures of Mary?

[jogomu]

You seem to be thinking of the idea of person as a distinct entity from nature. It is not. I am but one single human being. I have a human nature and a human person, but I am not two entities but one. My person (who) is an expression of my nature (what.) It is of the essence (nature) of human beings that we are expressed as one person.

The only reason I am thinking of this at all is that the one-to-one mapping between a person and a nature/will has no expression in God at all.

I.e., what we take for granted (one person goes with one nature/will) is never seen in God. In the one case, we have three persons who share a nature/will. In the other case (of the Incarnation), one person shares two natures/wills.

If we say that the human person doesn’t have this capability, that is one thing. But if we say that revelation teaches no distinction between person and nature in the abstract, then this is manifestly and completely denied by revelation about God.

In having slept on VC’s initial reply, I am wondering about the analogy with the amoeba using the pencil to write (the human person using the divine nature to act). The amoeba isn’t a person, and when we visualize the amoeba, we are thinking about things that belong to a nature. Obviously the human nature cannot act with the divine nature, but is there a transcendence to the created PERSON that, by grace, is able to “partake” in the divine nature in a rather full way… akin to the hypostatic union? If “person” is not in inherently limited by “nature”, then…?

It has already been made clear to me that dogma limits one and only one UNCREATED person to a hypostatic union. No other persons of the Trinity have taken on human nature. I’m just trying to make really, really sure that such a thing is not what is alluded to by “theosis” or “divinization” in the other direction.

``God became man so that man might become God.’’ (St Athanasius)

``And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed … that they may be one, even as we are one … that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one … Etc’’ (From John 17)

 

[JimG]

Have you been reading Teillard de Chardin?

Yes, there is of course a distinction conceptually between person (who) and nature (what). But they are not distinct as ontological entities. If they were, we would be polytheists.

In my opinion, beings which are personal are always, except for the Trinity, expressed in one person only.

The reason that God can be expressed as three persons is because (1) he is entirely spirit, and (2) he is inifinite and omnipotent.

God, one in being, has intellect and will. By his intellect, he knows himself. We can analogically think of this as akin to a human knowing himself. I know myself by generating an idea of myself. But it is imperfect. Not everything in myself is present in my idea of myself.

But God’s knowledge of himself is perfect. There is nothing at all lacking in his idea of himself, not even personhood. Thus, God, in knowing himself, eternally generates the Word. But they cannot be distinct in nature or being , only in person–that is, in relation.

Father and Son (Word) as persons, by an act of the one divine will, love each other, and the expression of that love is also perfect and personal–the Holy Spirit.

Nothing equivalent can occur with humans because we are limited in knowledge and in will, and limited by human nature.

 

[Ghosty]

jogomu: You asked if Mary could have the same level of Beatific Vision as Christ’s human soul. I believe that is certainly theoretically possible, and see no reason why it couldn’t be so. Just remember that the partaking of the Divine Nature by creatures, though very true and real, isn’t the same as being the Divine Nature.

In Christ there was both the sharing of Divine Nature with His humanity by Grace (without His humanity becoming anything but human), and also the “being” of the Divine Nature on the level of Person, since Christ is the Son of God. That circumstance, called the Hypostatic Union, or Incarnation, is wholly unique and can’t be replicated.

The fact that Christ’s human nature partakes of the Divine Nature, and thereby we can partake of the Divine Nature, is the whole point of the Incarnation, however. So in a real sense we can share in the Divine Nature as Christ’s humanity does, but we never become it the way Christ the Person is. It’s analagous to how a ball can be colored blue, but can’t be the color blue itself.

Hope that makes sense!

Peace and God bless!

 

[De_Maria]

I implore prayer for wisdom about the difference between a person and a nature or will.

Our Church teaches us that the persons of the Trinity share one nature and one will.

She also teaches us that the one person of the Son has two natures and two wills.

It has therefore come into my mind that even a divinized created person might have more than one nature and more than one will (one of them shared with the Trinity), given the teaching of our recent Council:

``Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.’’

Jesus Christ, perhaps, is no “freak” person by having two natures and two wills, but instead reveals to us the unspeakable designs of the Father in the normalcy of this situation for created persons also.

Since the Church contemplates in Mary that which she herself is becoming, the expression of this idea is that Mary, from the first moment of her conception as a created person, has had two natures and two wills-- one created and one uncreated or divine. This does not make her an uncreated person, but rather solidifies the Western doctrine of the Beatific Vision as direct participation in (“having”) the divine nature or essence, while further distancing the Church from the Orthodox conceptions of Palamas who said:

``No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature, or nearness to it.’’

Does the created person and particularly the New Eve, by God’s grace, transcend even the human nature and “have” the divine nature as well, in the image of her Son, yet without being more than Nothing in her person by comparison to God? Is this the meaning of “partake” in 2 Pet 1:4? Is this what Jesus was praying about when he prayed that we might be one just as he and the Father are one?

It seems to this poor soul to be a looming question (at least personally), and a potential division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (yet, while perhaps revealing the true spirit of the schism), and pertinent to the Marian trajectory of dogma, and therefore in need of prayer… particularly for the rescue of Eastern Catholic brethren engaged in Hesychasm if it falls short of the genuine God-given dignity of created persons.

For myself, if my vision of the dignity of the created person is heretical and blasphemous (while yet retaining the humility of the complete contingency and nothingness of the created person), I ask for prayer as well.

I live up this prayer intention to Mary the Mother of God, whose nature(s) it pertains to.

I love the humility with which you express your thoughts. Remember always to submit to the teachings of the Church if they contradict your own.

But I do believe the Church teaches that man’s nature may be “divinized”. And I believe the Church teaches that Mary’s nature was “divinized” from conception. Her union was so profound with the Holy Spirit and with the Holy Trinity.

***1988 **Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: * *[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . .*For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

But as for us, I believe an argument could be made for two wills in ordinary man based on St. Paul’s words:

Galatians 5
17 For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Romans 7
25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[puzzleannie]

I Since the Church contemplates in Mary that which she herself is becoming, the expression of this idea is that Mary, from the first moment of her conception as a created person, has had two natures and two wills-- one created and one uncreated or divine. This does not make her an uncreated person, but rather solidifies the Western doctrine of the Beatific Vision as direct participation in (“having”) the divine nature or essence, while further distancing the Church from the Orthodox conceptions of Palamas who said:
to.

wrong absolutely from start to finish
Mary is not divine, nor is she divinized, whatever you may mean by that term which is most often used incorrectly.

misunderstands, mistates, and twists the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
misunderstands and mistates the nature of the Beatific Vision
also reveals underly misunderstanding of the Person of Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Son of the Father, True God and True Man. study for more understanding of that doctrine and your misaprehensions about Mary will be resolved

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I implore prayer for wisdom about the difference between a person and a nature or will.

Our Church teaches us that the persons of the Trinity share one nature and one will.

She also teaches us that the one person of the Son has two natures and two wills.

It has therefore come into my mind that even a divinized created person might have more than one nature and more than one will (one of them shared with the Trinity), given the teaching of our recent Council:

``Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.’’

Jesus Christ, perhaps, is no “freak” person by having two natures and two wills, but instead reveals to us the unspeakable designs of the Father in the normalcy of this situation for created persons also.

Since the Church contemplates in Mary that which she herself is becoming, the expression of this idea is that Mary, from the first moment of her conception as a created person, has had two natures and two wills-- one created and one uncreated or divine. This does not make her an uncreated person, but rather solidifies the Western doctrine of the Beatific Vision as direct participation in (“having”) the divine nature or essence, while further distancing the Church from the Orthodox conceptions of Palamas who said:

``No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature, or nearness to it.’’

Does the created person and particularly the New Eve, by God’s grace, transcend even the human nature and “have” the divine nature as well, in the image of her Son, yet without being more than Nothing in her person by comparison to God? Is this the meaning of “partake” in 2 Pet 1:4? Is this what Jesus was praying about when he prayed that we might be one just as he and the Father are one?

It seems to this poor soul to be a looming question (at least personally), and a potential division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (yet, while perhaps revealing the true spirit of the schism), and pertinent to the Marian trajectory of dogma, and therefore in need of prayer… particularly for the rescue of Eastern Catholic brethren engaged in Hesychasm if it falls short of the genuine God-given dignity of created persons.

For myself, if my vision of the dignity of the created person is heretical and blasphemous (while yet retaining the humility of the complete contingency and nothingness of the created person), I ask for prayer as well.

I live up this prayer intention to Mary the Mother of God, whose nature(s) it pertains to.

Mary is 100% human, period.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I implore prayer for wisdom about the difference between a person and a nature or will.

Our Church teaches us that the persons of the Trinity share one nature and one will.

She also teaches us that the one person of the Son has two natures and two wills.

It has therefore come into my mind that even a divinized created person might have more than one nature and more than one will (one of them shared with the Trinity), given the teaching of our recent Council:

``Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.’’

Jesus Christ, perhaps, is no “freak” person by having two natures and two wills, but instead reveals to us the unspeakable designs of the Father in the normalcy of this situation for created persons also.

Since the Church contemplates in Mary that which she herself is becoming, the expression of this idea is that Mary, from the first moment of her conception as a created person, has had two natures and two wills-- one created and one uncreated or divine. This does not make her an uncreated person, but rather solidifies the Western doctrine of the Beatific Vision as direct participation in (“having”) the divine nature or essence, while further distancing the Church from the Orthodox conceptions of Palamas who said:

``No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature, or nearness to it.’’

He was right - there is nothing in common between God the Creator of all things, &, His creatures. We creatures are so utterly unlike God that the difference can be bridged only if He comes down to us - we cannot go up to Him.​

Then there can be communion between God & man - but only then.

But, by nature we are creatures, & He altogether transcends all creatures & the whole created order - He is separated from them by an impassable gulf. This is one of reasons He is called Holy: for holiness is separation from what is not-holy.

Because He is utterly, utterly, utterly Holy (see Isaiah 6.3 & Revelation 4.8), it is completely, totally, utterly & entirely out of the question that any creature should transcend the boundaries of its nature as a creature - it remains finite, because to be finite is inseparable from being a creature. Water remains water, even though it can be given the grace of having supernatural effects by cleansing from sin the effect is that of the Holy Spirit, working by means of a created thing. So with the Saints, all of them - they are transformed & converted & renewed by grace; but they remain creatures - they cannot become God; God cannot create God, because God is not created.

Does the created person and particularly the New Eve, by God’s grace, transcend even the human nature and “have” the divine nature as well, in the image of her Son, yet without being more than Nothing in her person by comparison to God? Is this the meaning of “partake” in 2 Pet 1:4? Is this what Jesus was praying about when he prayed that we might be one just as he and the Father are one?

No, to all these questions. Participation in the Divine nature is real, but mediated - from God, by God, in God to creatures. Because God is Divine, & we are created, God’s gift of Himself to us does not mean that we become God - we receive what is Divine, in a manner within our capacity to do so: IOW, in a created manner. God can communicate Himself in a manner that is Divine, is God, only to God.​

It seems to this poor soul to be a looming question (at least personally), and a potential division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (yet, while perhaps revealing the true spirit of the schism), and pertinent to the Marian trajectory of dogma, and therefore in need of prayer… particularly for the rescue of Eastern Catholic brethren engaged in Hesychasm if it falls short of the genuine God-given dignity of created persons.

For myself, if my vision of the dignity of the created person is heretical and blasphemous (while yet retaining the humility of the complete contingency and nothingness of the created person), I ask for prayer as well.

I live up this prayer intention to Mary the Mother of God, whose nature(s) it pertains to.

I’m very much afraid of any blurring of the difference between God & a “mere” Saint - it took the Jews over a thousand years to learn that God is One, Alone, Holy, Unique, & that no creature is like Him; we are surrounded by so many idols, of wood, stone, & in our hearts & minds, that the utter uniqueness, transcendence & Holiness of God is constantly in danger of being forgotten. Any creature can be an idol - God alone can save us from the service of idols, because they are lies & He Alone is “God, Living and True” ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Does the experience that the created person of Mary has of the divine nature in the order of grace differ subjectively from the experience that the uncreated person of Jesus has of his own divine nature? If so, in what way? What are the limits of this grace? Are they the limits of Palamas, excluding the creature from participation in the essence or nature of God? If so, then in what way is the man Jesus Christ representative of us as firstborn among many brothers? Does the man Jesus not fully participate in the divine nature/essence belonging to his own divine person? What are the limits of the participation of the glorified human nature of Jesus in his own divine nature?

He doesn’t participate in the Divine nature, because His Sacred Humanity is the humanity of the Word Incarnate - it can separated from it not in reality, but only in thought. He is not a human person - we are. And participation is the act of a person, not of a nature in abstraction from the person whose nature it is.​

One says “the Divine Nature” because the Divine Nature is common to, & peculiar to, the Three Divine Persons; the Persons are not separate, but) distinct. So none has (so to speak) a Divine Nature of His own that the others have not, but all are the Divine Nature, in common - it is infinitely realised in each Divine Person, each of whom indwells, & is indwelt by, the other two: for Each is Infinite Love in Person, Loving the Others Infinitely This is, & can be, true of no creature whatever.

We need to be very careful of curious speculations - these matters are so exalted, & so far beyond the human intellect to grasp, that it is very easy to be blinded by them.

Hope that helps

Dare we say that there are any limits? Would he not raise all human nature to that same level of participation?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Is it dogma that only three persons can possess the divine nature, or is it dogma that only three uncreated or divine persons can possess the divine nature? (I know, based on VCs comments, that it is probably a nonsense distinction.)

I may not be using the proper terminology for what I am trying to convey, since by “possess” I think I mean the same thing as “receive in the order of grace”… but I’m trying to limit the distinction to the “feminine” mode of “being from” (e.g. Eve from Adam) and of “responsive conception” (e.g. in fruitful love) rather than to arbitrarily downgrade the scope of the participation without warrant.

Wow! I think that is what I was looking for!! OK, now I think this is my last concern:

Can we say that the soul of Mary sees God as clearly and intimately as the soul of Christ? I.e., there there is no secret level of the Beatific Vision that Christ enjoys alone?

What a strange thing that one person cannot fully know himself from one nature to another… but I guess it makes sense due to the limitations of the lower nature.

No, that can’t be said. She is not as holy as the Son, she does not love as much, & she is altogether nothing in comparison to God - “less than an atom in comparison to God”, in fact.​

Nor is she eternal, uncreated, infinite, infinitely “in act”, metaphysically simple: unlike the Three Divine Persons. For all of these reasons, & others, it is impossible for any created being to see God in that way. As she is not God, she cannot be infinitely indwelt by, nor infinitely indwell, God (that would imply that she was omnipresent) - the Word Incarnate does & can, & can be & is.

She by contrast is a creature, so she cannot be more than a creature - not without ceasing to be a human person.

FWIW, the human soul, person & nature are none of them the acting human person - they are not meant to be separated, except in thought. So talk of the soul of a person, amounts to talk of the person. So “Can the soul of X see…?” amounts to asking “Can X see…?” More to the point, Christ is the Redeemer & Saviour of the whole of man - not of parts of him: He saves men, not just their souls.