Hypostatic Union violates law of non-contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter maurin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maurin

Guest
Hello all,

I am in discussion with a self-described JW/Arian who claims that The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature’s of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

I have searched Catholic Answers, The Encyclopedia and other sources and can find nothing.

How does one answer that properly and in no uncertain terms?

Thank you for your replies and help.
 
maurin said:
…The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature’s of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t.

The natures divine and human are not contradictory. They are different.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
maurin said:
Hello all,

I am in discussion with a self-described JW/Arian who claims that The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature’s of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

I have searched Catholic Answers, The Encyclopedia and other sources and can find nothing.

How does one answer that properly and in no uncertain terms?

Thank you for your replies and help.
Click to expand...
Wow! great question.

Why not ask Fr. Mitch Pacwa? He’s on EWTN’s daily show, “Open Line” **today **Wednesdays). You can ask by e-mail: openline@ewtn.com Be sure to note that the question is for Father P.

I THINK he will say that the hypostatic union describes a unique relationship of the human and divine natures that cannot violate the principle of non-contradiction because the natures remain two under the ‘umbrella’ of the single personhood. Does that make sense? I dunno. This is all beyond me. I’ll tune in at 3:00 ET and see if he answers the question for you.
 
Dear Mercygate,

Thanks for the suggestion. I do not get EWTN on my cable. If I email the question, will you watch and let me know?
 
maurin said:
Dear Mercygate,

Thanks for the suggestion. I do not get EWTN on my cable. If I email the question, will you watch and let me know?
Click to expand...
This is a RADIO show – and you can listen on the Internet. Go to EWTN.com and click on RADIO. Then click on “Open Line” and then on “Listen Live” at 3:00 p.m. ET. Failing that, the “Open Line” link on the RADIO tab allows you to listen to the shows for the past week. OR you can go to “LIBRARIES” : “AUDIO” : type in “Open Line” in the search box and it will take you to the list of programs. By tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday at the latest, the show will be available for listening or downloading on the computer.

Practically everything EWTN broadcasts is available to view or listen to in their audio libraries section. I don’t get EWTN radio and don’t have cable, so this is how I connect to EWTN.
 
Mark,

Thank you, that is how I responded, citing the Creation Story (let us make man in Our Image and Likeness), and that our fallen human nature shares in the Divine nature because of the Cross and Resurrection.
 
Maurin,

That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has TWO natures (Human and Divine) united in ONE personhood.

If we were to say that Christ’s human nature was His Divine nature or His Divine Nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don’t say that.

Since their are TWO natures there is no contradiction.

Perhaps your friend doesn’t like the formulation that Christ is both God and man? That also doesn’t run afoul of the principle because Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature.

Thus when we say of Christ “that is a man” and we say of Christ “that is a Divine Being” we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect.

What do you think?
(And welcome to the forums too, if you are new and not just a survivor of the great crash of '06!)

God bless,
VC
 
Mercygate,

Modern Technology…ain’t it grand!!! 🙂 Thanks for explaining it to me. I will listen in and see!!!

thanks again,

your little brother in the Lord’s Heart,
m
 
maurin said:
Mercygate,

Modern Technology…ain’t it grand!!! 🙂 Thanks for explaining it to me. I will listen in and see!!!

thanks again,

your little brother in the Lord’s Heart,
m
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, it looks like verbum caro and I are both on the same wavelength with this. Ain’t that reassuring? Only verbum explained it better.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Maurin,

That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has TWO natures (Human and Divine) united in ONE personhood.

If we were to say that Christ’s human nature was His Divine nature or His Divine Nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don’t say that.

Since their are TWO natures there is no contradiction.

Perhaps your friend doesn’t like the formulation that Christ is both God and man? That also doesn’t run afoul of the principle because Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature.

Thus when we say of Christ “that is a man” and we say of Christ “that is a Divine Being” we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect.

What do you think?
(And welcome to the forums too, if you are new and not just a survivor of the great crash of '06!)

God bless,
VC
Click to expand...
Thank you VC. This is very helpful. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on your statement: "He is not both man and divine in the same respect?

Also, are the Divine Nature and Human Nature really opposites? I do not think so, but do not know how to make the case.

What do you think?
 
maurin said:
Thank you VC. This is very helpful. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on your statement: "He is not both man and divine in the same respect?
Click to expand...
You’re welcome Maurin! I’m glad Mercygate and I could help a bit.

As to the above statement. . .it is crucial when dealing with the principle of non-contradiction that we include “at the same time and in the same respect”. Otherwise MANY things would violate the principle (and it wouldn’t be a principle at all). For instance a light bulb cannot be both on and off. It has to be one or the other. But it could be on at one time and off at another time. Thus the princple adds “at the same time”.

Another example: Can I be both a poor man and a rich man? At different times? YES. At the same time? YES. At the same time and in the same respect? NO. I can be poor in respect to Bill Gates and rich in respect to a third-world countryman.

As applied to my statement about Christ. . .it is dogmatic that Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. But these are not mutually exclusive of each other. He is Divine with respect to (or when viewed under) His Divine Nature, and He is human with respect to (or when viewed under) His human nature.
40.png
maurin:
Also, are the Divine Nature and Human Nature really opposites? I do not think so, but do not know how to make the case.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I suppose we could answer like Aquinas often answers: Sic et non. Yes and no. 👍 (not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction though. . .because yes in one respect no in another :D)

No, in that I don’t think there is really such a thing as an opposite nature. . . since nature describes the powers that a being has. And I’m not sure what “opposite” powers would be. For instance our Human nature contains the nutritive power (the power to eat and grow). What would the opposite of that be?

But in another sense Yes, human nature is as opposite to the Divine nature as you can get. . .in fact any part of creation is “opposite” the Divine nature because all creation is contigent being, whereas the Divine nature is non-contingent and eternally exists and contains its own principle of being within itself. In that sense we and all creation are mostly made up of “non-being” and are only held in being by God’s will.

What do you think?
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
You’re welcome Maurin! I’m glad Mercygate and I could help a bit.

As to the above statement. . .it is crucial when dealing with the principle of non-contradiction that we include “at the same time and in the same respect”. Otherwise MANY things would violate the principle (and it wouldn’t be a principle at all). For instance a light bulb cannot be both on and off. It has to be one or the other. But it could be on at one time and off at another time. Thus the princple adds “at the same time”.

Another example: Can I be both a poor man and a rich man? At different times? YES. At the same time? YES. At the same time and in the same respect? NO. I can be poor in respect to Bill Gates and rich in respect to a third-world countryman.

As applied to my statement about Christ. . .it is dogmatic that Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. But these are not mutually exclusive of each other. He is Divine with respect to (or when viewed under) His Divine Nature, and He is human with respect to (or when viewed under) His human nature.

Hmmm. I suppose we could answer like Aquinas often answers: Sic et non. Yes and no. 👍 (not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction though. . .because yes in one respect no in another :D)

No, in that I don’t think there is really such a thing as an opposite nature. . . since nature describes the powers that a being has. And I’m not sure what “opposite” powers would be. For instance our Human nature contains the nutritive power (the power to eat and grow). What would the opposite of that be?

But in another sense Yes, human nature is as opposite to the Divine nature as you can get. . .in fact any part of creation is “opposite” the Divine nature because all creation is contigent being, whereas the Divine nature is non-contingent and eternally exists and contains its own principle of being within itself. In that sense we and all creation are mostly made up of “non-being” and are only held in being by God’s will.

What do you think?
VC
Click to expand...
I hope you don’t mind me saying so, but YOU are wonderful!!

I think that I mischose my word: “opposite” is not describing what I mean.

Man is the only creature that God made in His Image and Likeness, so I think that is what I am trying to get at. If we are made in His Image and Likeness, does that imply a sort of “sharing” or “participation” in His Divinity already, in which no other creature shares?

I really wish I had the vocabulary to explain myself exactly, so I appreciate you bearing with me.

m**
 
Maurin,

I’m glad that I was able to contribute.

As far as our participation in the Divine nature. . .well I think I understand what you mean, but it would probably be best to see what some other board members, who are more knowledgeable in that subject, post in reply to that specific question.

I was only responding to how the two nature in Christ are not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. I will be interested in your continued discussion with the other board members regarding how our creation and the hypostatic union relate to our participation in the Divine nature. Maybe I’ll throw in my two cents too. . .or half a cent. 👍

God bless you!
VC
 
It is important to note that hypostatic union does not imply that Christ is only God, and also only man. It implies that Christ is fully God and also fully man. There is a distinction.
 
Verbum Caro, Mercygate and have mercy:

Thank you all for taking the time to help me on this. I am taking these answers, and giving credit where credit is due :)! to the other board now: catholicforum.com

I do hope we can continue the discussion about human nature in relation to Exodus: being made in the Image and Likeness of God before the fall.

Thank you all.

your little brother in wisdom and the Lord’s Heart,
maurin
 
maurin said:
Man is the only creature that God made in His Image and Likeness, so I think that is what I am trying to get at. If we are made in His Image and Likeness, does that imply a sort of “sharing” or “participation” in His Divinity already, in which no other creature shares?
Click to expand...
I think that perhaps this quote speaks to what you have asked here:

Just in the same way, man has mind, word and spirit; and the mind cannot be without the word, nor the word without the spirit, but the three are always in one another, yet exist in themselves. The mind speaks by means of words, and the word is manifested through the spirit. This example shows that man bears in himself a feeble image of the ineffable prototype, the Trinity, thus demonstrating that he has been made in God’s image.
**St. Gregory of Sinai (Texts on Commandments and Dogmas no. 31) **
 
maurin said:
Hello all,

I am in discussion with a self-described JW/Arian who claims that The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature’s of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

I have searched Catholic Answers, The Encyclopedia and other sources and can find nothing.

How does one answer that properly and in no uncertain terms?

Thank you for your replies and help.
Click to expand...

In what respect is it said to do so ?​

You don’t say, so I’m guessing that the objection is that Jesus cannot be wholly man & wholly God at the same time.

He can.

If the two natures both occupied space, then it would be true that both could not be in the same space - just as one cannot expect a small thing like a biscuit, & a big thing like a truck or whale or star, to occupy the same space 🙂
The reason they can’t do so, is that both are material bodies - so the space which one occupies, cannot at the same time be occupied by the other.

The two natures are not bodies - they do not exist spatially, so neither occupies any space, so neither occupies space at the expense of the other. It would be truer to say that they are so intimately united (without being confused) that they abide in one another, a bit as two people can be said to be in one another, when they think of one another. Both remain distinct from each other, neither becomes the other: so it is, sort of, with the two natures; only far more intimately.

So with the Blessed Trinity - the Three Persons abide in each other, but do not take up space. Could thinking that they do take up space, be the reason for denying that the Blessed Trinity is the Trinity ? “God is Spirit” - so God is non-spatial; God is not a body.

Does that help at all ? ##
 
maurin said:
Yes, and absolutely!!! Thank you, Gottle of Geer.

I was wondering, and if you had the inclination to do so, would you check out his response?

catholicforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95270&postcount=2

I need more help!!!

thank you, I am
in search of wisdom in Jesus’ Heart,
maurin
Click to expand...

Great 🙂​

As to his post:
In the one person there are two natures, Divine nature and human nature. Further, these two natures are substantially united in one subsistence. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.
Click to expand...

It wouldn’t, because they are non-spatial, &, there is no contradiction in saying that they can be united hypostatically. The subsistence of the one does not cancel that of the other - it is not like saying that the soul of a man could be united with that of a frog, say, because the HU is a union of things which are in no way similar in any respect, things which have nothing in common. Men and other animals are different, but there is a continuity in being between them; between God and creatures, no such continuity exists at all - unless God should create it. The HU is that continuity - it combines things so wholly unlike that they are not dissimilar at all, for dissimilarity implies at least some similarity 🙂​

That type of union - between a human soul & and the soul of another animal - would be monstrous; the union of God’s Nature with a human nature in the HU is not monstrous, but is more like (but far better than) the union of God in with the soul of a person in grace. Man has a vocation to be like God, in God’s way - the HU recalls that. Man has no such vocation in regard to the lower animals - that’s why one union would be monstrous, & the other, wholly appropriate to our nature. ##
(Btw., You have grasped the principle of non-contradiction correctly: “Another example: Can I be both a poor man and a rich man? At different times? YES! At the same time? YES! At the same time and in the same respect? NO”)

Here’s why.

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

These two statements are by definition contradictory for any S and any P.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)
Click to expand...

“All” is a quantatitive term for talking about material entities (like groceries) - with non-material entities, entities which do not come in quantities, it’s better to use the word “total”. “All” does not exclude the notion of parts, but “total” does so, more readily at least.​

More to the point perhaps: “All Jesus is God” is not true: to be Jesus, is to have a human nature, and a soul, and a human body - three things God does does not have, because God is metaphysically an utterly simple (= without parts) Essence. Jesus is wholly God, but He is not all God; because “all God” implies that the distinct parts of His human nature taken in isolation or together are God. And that would undermine the reality of His human nature.

For similar reasons, He is wholly man, but not all man. Neither nature is the other - they are united, but not swapped or confused, or congealed into some third nature. Both retain their characteristics intact. So we can speak of “the Blood of God” because the man Who is God in Person shed blood, even though the Divine nature is impassible & immortal. ##
Christ is both God and Man at the same time in the same person and the “being” of God is not the “being” of man.
{A}: Jesus is God, and {~A}: Jesus is not God (i.e. He is man).

The relationship between these two propositions is the same in ontology (relationship) and temporaly (i.e. at the same time). This violate LC.

Looking at it from another angle, it is logically inconsistent to say a being is God(omniscient,omnipotent,omnipresent,Creator) and man(not-omniscient, not-omnipresent, not omniscient, not Creator) in the same person at the same time.
Click to expand...

That last bit is not the Catholic doctrine. What he has done, I think, is confuse the subsisting subject - the “I” of Christ - in which, Whom, the natures are present, with the natures themselves.​

The problem is with the word “being” - atoms have being, as do quarks & neutrinos (if they exist); but so do angels; and the being of an angel is incomparably more exalted than that of an atom. Yet all are alike in one crucial respect - they are all creatures. And between creatures & their Creator there is so immeasurable a difference in being, such total unlikeness, that they cannot be compared. God does not have being - God is Being, without limit. In comparison with God, all creatures are as nothing. The difference between man and God is unbridgeable, unless God bridge it. In Jesus, He has done exactly that. ##

Any help ? ##
 
Dear GofG,

Yes, however I am a dim bulb in a box with real shiners!! Would you consider going to catholicforum.com and joining the conversation?

I am certainly over my head here, and your help would be great.

I hope you consider it.

In search of Holy Wisdom with the aid of my brothers and sisters,
maurin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top