Hypostatic Union in Jesus

[aemcpa]

Thanks for your thoughts Ambrose. Could you talk a little more of this “latent faith”. Are you saying that the Apostles and Evangelists knew the details of the scholastic doctrines we have today but they didn’t pass them on, so the faith had to be redeveloped to the same scholastic level that the Evangelists and Apostles had? I haven’t come across that view before, but it’s an interesting one (albeit one I find hard to share).

God bless +

He is most certainly not saying that. He is saying that the faith was handed to the Apostles in the form of an onion, so to speak, and that the living Apostolic authority of the Church continues to peel back the layers of the deposit of faith in every age.

 

[Aloysium]

If Jesus was fully human, would the possibility of him sinning still exist? Or would the divine nature prevent this from happening?

It someone feels like the idea of a ‘spotless victim’ is meaningless when the victim himself has been ‘pre-programmed’ (so to speak) to never blemish himself.

i believe this was answered above, but i like examples

It is not so much that His divine nature would “prevent” Him from sinning.
It isn’t pre-programming; in general computer analogies fail miserably in describing humanity, let alone God.

If we make an analogy to ourselves. Could you commit a sacrilege on one of your holy books? Sure you could. Nothing is “preventing” you and you are not preprogrammed to not do so. Your love of your God would make it impossible. Jesus’ love of the Father and ourselves makes sin not an option for His infinite will.

 

[Michael1966]

He is most certainly not saying that. He is saying that the faith was handed to the Apostles in the form of an onion, so to speak, and that the living Apostolic authority of the Church continues to peel back the layers of the deposit of faith in every age.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I think I’d agree with that in so far as doctrinal development rests on what has come before from the Apostolic faith. When another source, such as Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, is added into the mix then I suspect we’re not just dealing with the original onion, so to speak, and so the certainty would seem to be reduced unless those philosophical constructs are also seen as infallible even though they did not come from the deposit of faith. Remember that Aelred said “The fusion of Jewish faith and Greek thought is an essential part of Christianity”, which is an interesting position to take I think, considering I’m not sure how much Greek thought the Apostles incorporated into their faith unless most is hidden from the scriptures they left us. I still struggle to see how something is essential when it only really started to develop in the early centuries of Christianity and didn’t reach a peak until the medieval period.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on the influence of Greek philosophy and scholasticism as I suspect we’re detracting (mea culpa) from the important topic of our Lord genuinely being both human and divine.

 

[Goya]

i believe this was answered above, but i like examples

It is not so much that His divine nature would “prevent” Him from sinning.
It isn’t pre-programming; in general computer analogies fail miserably in describing humanity, let alone God.

If we make an analogy to ourselves. Could you commit a sacrilege on one of your holy books? Sure you could. Nothing is “preventing” you and you are not preprogrammed to not do so. Your love of your God would make it impossible. Jesus’ love of the Father and ourselves makes sin not an option for His infinite will.

I get what your saying, and this is consistent with my first post (#2). Makes sense. But, we can’t apply ourselves as a standard for measuring or understanding God. As I posted above, I stand corrected–it appears, sense notwithstanding, that to hold that Christ even could have sinned, places us squarely in the Nestorian heresy.

…and so I renounce my earlier stated position.

And I do so, with admitted difficulty. I really do have a hard time reconciling the notion that Christ could not possibly sin, with the notions of sacrifice, free will, and my understaanding of what the Agony and the Temptation in the Dessert represent.

But the Church appears to have spoken on this–and so it appears I am posed with a choice–accept this difficult teaching with the Church–or deny the teaching, against the Church.

I choose to remain Catholic. And therefore accept Her teaching on this matter.

It’s hardly the first time I’ve had to make this decision–and it probably won’t be the last–but it is a significant part of what it means to BE Catholic.

Far more important than my ability to wrap my small mind around the Trinity, to me, is the Eucharist, the Resurrection of the Lord and the resulting availability of redemption, and to remain in communion with the Bride of Christ, that I may avail myself and my family, of those (i.e.–the Eucharist, redemption through the Resurrection, and the Church/the Bride of Christ).

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Thanks for your thoughts Ambrose. Could you talk a little more of this “latent faith”. Are you saying that the Apostles and Evangelists knew the details of the scholastic doctrines we have today but they didn’t pass them on, so the faith had to be redeveloped to the same scholastic level that the Evangelists and Apostles had? I haven’t come across that view before, but it’s an interesting one (albeit one I find hard to share).

God bless +

No, I am not talking about a “latent faith.” What I am talking about is the “mystery” of the Deposit of Faith as it has unfolded since it was first delivered by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and then their successors.

Take for example the problem of the Gentiles in the New Testament. St. Peter had a vision about the “net” of God taking in every kind of living thing, some of which would have been considered “unclean” by the observant Jew. But God tells Peter in his vision not to think this way about what God has made. This vision and St. Peter’s understanding was a development of what was already latent in the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Now you might object and say this is in Scripture, so is not a development, but the original revelation. But I say that “development” is already observable within the Sacred Scriptures themselves. From the Torah, to the Psalms there is a development. From the Prophets to the 2nd Temple, there was yet more development. This unfolding of the mystery is related to what Jesus said to his Apostles at the Last Supper.

[BibleDRB]john 16:12[/BibleDRB]

It is because we are only human, that such enormous and sublime truths can only be drawn out over time and with much discernment. This is not because the ultimate articulation is defective but because the original truth (or mystery) has many layers, and for a very long time it was not NEEDFUL for the articulation to be made.

Now we have a wonderful theology of the liturgy of the Mass. However in St. Paul’s day there was an abuse already creeping in by the way it was celebrated as a part of a gathering’s ordinary meal. It needed to be developed and understood much more. That is what St. Paul tries to do by emphasizing that this is the Body of the Lord and His Blood that is present at the Mass.

We can observe all sorts of places where the Apostles are writing to correct, and make clear, what was NOT explicit beforehand. That is what the Church continues to do today. The Church has exactly the same kind of authority that the Scriptures contain. We can’t say, well before the Schism the Church taught correctly, but since then I have to withhold my unconditional belief. The Catholic Church, even though it is divided still is the Oracle of Revelation.

Just as 2nd Temple Judaism was divided in worship from the Samaritans, Jesus declared that the Pharisees were sitting on the chair of Moses. There is no qualification that only the old ancient undivided Hebrew practice was correct.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Michael1966:

I think I’d agree with that in so far as doctrinal development rests on what has come before from the Apostolic faith. When another source, such as Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, is added into the mix then I suspect we’re not just dealing with the original onion, so to speak, and so the certainty would seem to be reduced unless those philosophical constructs are also seen as infallible even though they did not come from the deposit of faith.

This is indefensible for the simple reason that the Church is infallible. Even if you can identify the path by which a doctrine’s expression has come to be, that knowledge is only of scholastic interest and should have no relevance to the Truth of the doctrine itself. Notice I do not distinguish between fallible and infallible doctrines. There are only Church doctrines, all of which are infallible.

Secondly, NO doctrine of the Church comes from outside the Deposit of Faith. By its very definition, a doctrine of the Church, is EXPLICITLY a part of the original DEPOSIT OF FAITH.

 

[Michael1966]

No, I am not talking about a “latent faith.”

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me a bit then as before you definitely seemed to be talking about a latent faith - “The important thing to keep in mind when discussing the Deposit of the Faith (that which was handed down by the Apostles) is that much of it was latent and not articulated.”

God bless +

 

[Michael1966]

Secondly, NO doctrine of the Church comes from outside the Deposit of Faith. By its very definition, a doctrine of the Church, is EXPLICITLY a part of the original DEPOSIT OF FAITH.

Yet many scholars do track Aquina’s thoughts on the soul back to Plato and Aristotle. And then scholars track Aquinas’s thoughts into doctrinal developments.

But I accept that you may see it differently and see either Plato and Aristotle’s writings on the soul as being part of the deposit of faith, or do not believe that Aquinas borrowed from either on their views of the soul (such as being vegetative, sensitive, immortal). I suppose Aquinas could have come to the same conclusions independently, but that seems rather unlikely to me considering that we know much scholasticsm was heavily influenced by the rediscovery and translation of Greek philosophy.

Still, I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the apostles saw the soul in the same was as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, but I’ll keep an open mind.

Anyway I sense we’re beginning to say the same things to each other, so I shall leave it there (I’m happy to read any further thoughts of your’s of course).

God bless and may you have a very pleasant evening +

 

[aemcpa]

Yet many scholars do track Aquina’s thoughts on the soul back to Plato and Aristotle. And then scholars track Aquinas’s thoughts into doctrinal developments.

But I accept that you may see it differently and see either Plato and Aristotle’s writings on the soul as being part of the deposit of faith, or do not believe that Aquinas borrowed from either on their views of the soul (such as being vegetative, sensitive, immortal). I suppose Aquinas could have come to the same conclusions independently, but that seems rather unlikely to me considering that we know much scholasticsm was heavily influenced by the rediscovery and translation of Greek philosophy.

Still, I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the apostles saw the soul in the same was as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, but I’ll keep an open mind.

God bless +

It doesn’t matter what the Apostles understood. The Apostolic Faith is the entire deposit that was given to the Apostles, not merely what they understood about it. Even though they did not yet fully understand it, by the working of the Holy Spirit they handed it on whole and entire. I don’t know why you think it would be beneficial to return to a more primitive understanding of Christianity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me a bit then as before you definitely seemed to be talking about a latent faith - “The important thing to keep in mind when discussing the Deposit of the Faith (that which was handed down by the Apostles) is that much of it was latent and not articulated.”

God bless +

IOW, latent in the Deposit of Faith. Or to further clarify, a latent truth in the Deposit of Faith. A latent faith has no meaning.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Michael1966:

But I accept that you may see it differently and see either Plato and Aristotle’s writings on the soul as being part of the deposit of faith, or do not believe that Aquinas borrowed from either on their views of the soul (such as being vegetative, sensitive, immortal). I suppose Aquinas could have come to the same conclusions independently, but that seems rather unlikely to me considering that we know much scholasticsm was heavily influenced by the rediscovery and translation of Greek philosophy.

It’s not a question of believing that Plato’s and Aristotle’s teaching was a part of the Deposit of Faith, which of course it wasn’t.

The question is, how does one articulate Spiritual and Divine Truths (which are a part of the Deposit of Faith) in human language, which is naturally limited and unable to compass such mysteries? Theological language is a sort of symbolic code or language which expresses Divine and Spiritual Truths, in a way that is both consonant with the Deposit of Faith, and agreeable and understandable to Christians. Perhaps the Greek philosophers already developed such a language to express Philosophical and Metaphysical principles which were otherwise impossible to explain. Maybe even further, this language, which was already agreed upon by Philosophers could also be adapted to Theological principles and truths. Is it impossible to believe that the Greek philosophers were unwittingly doing God’s work, albeit on more human interests? St. Paul seems to think so.

[bibledrb] Acts 17:26-28 [/bibledrb]

So in this way, the things in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas that can be traced back to Aristotle and Plato are no longer a hindrance. It is nothing more than converting a pagan temple into a Christian Church. The building is good and solid and in no way harms the integrity of the Church.

 

[R_C]

I’ll take it as my daily dose of humility.

:hug1: