I need help explaining the Trinity to my boyfriend

[DoubleL37]

I’m currently reading The Shack with my fiance. He is also confused about the Trinity. We are only about half way through so it hasn’t really explained the Trinity yet, but I’m hoping that it helps him understand. If I remember, I’ll post again when we get farther along and let you know how it’s going.

 

[karebear92]

I am confused as to why you think the human form of Christ is what saves humanity. I don’t think this is correct, rather it was death of Jesus on the Cross that saved us.

The Eutychian heresy is similar to what you are saying, that the Son is homoouisian in His divine nature, but not in His human nature. Bear in mind that both Nestorianism and Eutychianism are dyophystice heresies. The idea that Jesus was not eternally God and man sounds like textbook dyophysitism to me

I think it is His resurrection that saves us. After Adam sinned, humans were condemned to death. Christ is the new Adam, He was perfect and sinless, redeeming humans by being sinless and overcoming death. He sacrificed Himself on the cross but if there wasn’t a resurrection it would have been in vain.

I think that Jesus assumed human nature at conception. How could He have been human before He became human? In the Nicene Creed we say: "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

How could He be made man if He were always man? I am not dividing his natures but saying he did not assume human nature until he became human. I could be wrong on this but I don’t think that I am.

 

[stanczyk]

I think it is His resurrection that saves us. After Adam sinned, humans were condemned to death. Christ is the new Adam, He was perfect and sinless, redeeming humans by being sinless and overcoming death. He sacrificed Himself on the cross but if there wasn’t a resurrection it would have been in vain.

I would direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2 Ed, at 1019: “Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.”

I think that Jesus assumed human nature at conception. How could He have been human before He became human?

How indeed. This is the mystery of the eternal nature of God. Don’t get too caught up in human, temporal concepts here. How could He have been human before He became human? The answer is that the Son never “became” human in a temporal sense, but has eternally been both fully God and fully man. Jesus “became” physically present on Earth, but this did not alter His eternal nature.

In the Nicene Creed we say: "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

How could He be made man if He were always man? I am not dividing his natures but saying he did not assume human nature until he became human. I could be wrong on this but I don’t think that I am.

Well, let’s consider this idea that the Son was somehow of a single nature prior to His incarnation. What does that mean other than the bifurcation of His natures as divine and human?

The Son was not physically present on Earth in time before Jesus’s temporal existence, nor is He any currently physically present on Earth. But the idea that this detracts from the Son’s eternal dual nature as fully God and fully man eternally is dyophysitism.

 

[karebear92]

I would direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2 Ed, at 1019: “Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.”

He couldn’t have conquered death if not for the resurrection. He did not conquer it by dying but by resurrecting, which is the conquering of death.

Well, let’s consider this idea that the Son was somehow of a single nature prior to His incarnation. What does that mean other than the bifurcation of His natures as divine and human?

The Son was not physically present on Earth in time before Jesus’s temporal existence, nor is He any currently physically present on Earth. But the idea that this detracts from the Son’s eternal dual nature as fully God and fully man eternally is dyophysitism.

Generally that term is used referring to Christ on earth. For example, his mind was divine but his body was human etc.

For example, on earth Jesus had to learn as part of being human. He was not born with divine knowledge and understanding. Did He also have to learn in heaven?

By the way, Christ does have two natures. I am pretty sure we aren’t arguing about that right?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I think the confusion is the physical existence of Christ in time, versus the existence of the Trinity eternally; essentially outside of time. I regret that I was not clear in drawing this distinction earlier.

There was certainly a temporal point at which Jesus did not have a physical presence on Earth. Likewise, after His Ascension, he no longer had a physical presence on Earth. But eternally the nature of the Son is fully God and fully man. The nature of eternity defies human comprehension in linear temporal terms. But it is not correct to say that there was ever a point where the Son was not fully man and fully God.

Greetings Stanczyk,

My apologies for jumping in so late, but I have been watching this thread with some interest.

I have some questions to ask you before I state anything that I would like answered.

1. If Jesus was human before his Incarnation how could this be, seeing that Mary his Mother was born at a particular time in history? After all Jesus does get His human nature from Mary, the Mother of God.
2. The Hypostatic Union, that which Christ’s divine nature and human nature happened at ONE point in history or in time and that was at the time when Mary concieved of the Holy Spirit. [De Fide doctrine]
3. The Hypostatic Union will never cease and will continue for all eternity. [De Fide doctrine.] However this De Fide doctrine does not teach that the Hypostatic Union was present before it began.

Can you provide some references as to why you hold your position as when you say “It is not correct to say that there was ever a point where the Son was not fully man and fully God?” I believe this sentence of yours to be TRUE after the fact that the Incarnation took place.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I understand the logic of this line of thought but I fear that it treads too close to Nestorianism. The conflation of temporal and eternal properties is probably at the root of our disagreement.

You ask, what was the purpose of Christ coming to earth if He has a physical body eternally. But I do not see any sort of redundancy here. Christ’s physical nature, fully human and fully God, existed eternally; prior to Adam in a sense. However, the purpose of Christ coming to Earth was to serve as the sacrifice to seal the New Covenant with His death on the Cross. This is not in any way contradicted by the fact of His eternally having a physical body.

I would gently urge you that it is incorrect to think of Christ as ever being only divine; Christ has never been something other than fully God and fully man. The nature of the Son is both fully God and fully man, eternally.

Greetings Stanczyk,

Can you please tell me what you mean by Christ’s physcial nature, fully human and fully God, existed eternally; prior to Adam in a sense? I am unclear what is meant by “in a sense.” and wish not to jump to conclusion.

Where in Church Teachings does it teach that Jesus had a physical body for all eternity prior to the Hypostatic Union?

I can agree with your posts as long as we are talking about the point of Incarnation and beyond, but not before the Incarnation.

In all of my studies of theology and readings of many of the Church Fathers and saints have I run across this point of view.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[stanczyk]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Hi Anathema Sit!

My apologies for jumping in so late, but I have been watching this thread with some interest.

Glad to have your perspective.

I have some questions to ask you before I state anything that I would like answered.

1. If Jesus was human before his Incarnation how could this be, seeing that Mary his Mother was born at a particular time in history? After all Jesus does get His human nature from Mary, the Mother of God.

Does Jesus truly get His human nature from Mary? An interesting question and I thank your for it because it has prompted me to delve more deeply into this question. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Annunciation was the beginning of Jesus’s human nature. But “beginning” is a temporal concept. This temporal beginning does not alter the fact that the eternal nature of Jesus is both fully God and fully man. There was a beginning of the physical presence of Jesus on earth among mortals in linear time, but I cannot see how this would alter the eternal and unchanging nature of the person of the Son.

1. The Hypostatic Union, that which Christ’s divine nature and human nature happened at ONE point in history or in time and that was at the time when Mary concieved of the Holy Spirit.

The relationship of God to time is prompting some confusion, I think. The person of the Son is eternally fully God and fully man. His having a temporal beginning does not alter the eternality of His nature.

1. The Hypostatic Union will never cease and will continue for all eternity. [De Fide doctrine.] However this De Fide doctrine does not teach that the Hypostatic Union was present before it began.

What does eternal mean? The eternal is that which exists outside of time. It is a concept incomprehensible to humans, who are temporal creatures. But the concepts of “before” and “after” does not apply to the eternal.

Can you present some Church documentation or writings that help convey this idea that Jesus was human as well as Divine BEFORE the Incarnation?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

As I said, “before” is not really an apt concept. The eternal nature of Christ is fully God and fully Man. This is logically necessitated by the fact that the nature of the trinity is unchanging and eternal, and the nature of the Son is fully God and fully man. There is no point in time, past, present or future, where the eternal presence of the the Trinity is not felt. Likewise, there is no point in the past, present or future where the eternal nature of the Trinity is altered.

 

[stanczyk]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Can you please tell me what you mean by Christ’s physcial nature, fully human and fully God, existed eternally; prior to Adam in a sense? I am unclear what is meant by “in a sense.” and wish not to jump to conclusion.

I hope I have elucidated this with my above post. I have not been very clear in explaining myself. By “in a sense,” I mean that, even prior to Adam it was not wrong to say that the nature of the Son is fully God and fully man, even though the physical presence of Jesus on earth had not yet had its temporal beginning. The essence of Christ as fully God and fully man is eternal and unchanging.

So, to boil it down:
The person of the Trinity known as the Son consists of two natures, fully human and fully divine, in one hypostasis. That single hypostasis (which is fully human and fully divine) is eternal. To deny that the human nature of the Son is eternal is to impute two hypostases to Son, and is thus dyophysitism.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

When I had compelted posting the second response I was a bit excited to see you were online because I am very interested in what you have to say.

Hi Anathema Sit!

Yeah unfortunately someone else already had the correctly spelled username taken. SO I took this one instead. I think it is funny because I cannot spell very good.

Glad to have your perspective.

Well I had to dig out some books to do some research on what you are presenting. So it gives me an excuse to delve into Christology which is one of my favourite topics.

Does Jesus truly get His human nature from Mary? An interesting question and I thank your for it because it has prompted me to delve more deeply into this question.

Of whom else would Christ get His human nature from, if not from Mary? If He got it from somewhere else, then how can we call Mary the Mother of God? Jesus had no human father [biological that is] so it would stand that His human nature came from Mary. I shall do some more looking into this as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Annunciation was the beginning of Jesus’s human nature.

I would agree with this. I wished to post some more regarding this.

These are taken from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

[NOTE: I may have to post in separate posts becuase this might get a little long winded.]

Jesus Christ is True God and True Son of God. [De Fide doctrine]

What is says in the first paragraph of the explanation is telling.

We believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is God and man. [Here’s the important part] He is God begotten of the substance of the Father [God] before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother.

I think we can both agree on this one.

This temporal beginning does not alter the fact that the eternal nature of Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

Actually this supposition goes against this De Fide doctrine. However it will tie in a bit later.

The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception. [De Fide]

Here’s what is has to say in the first paragraph.

“In opposition to the Catholic dogma is the Origenistic doctine, according to which Christ’s human soul pre-existed, and already before the Incarnation was united with the Divine Logos.”

It also says Mary’s true Divine Motherhood demands that the conception of Jesus and the beginning of the Hypostatic Union should coincide in time.

[If Jesus had his humanity before Mary, then Mary could not be called the Mother of God.]

Mary is truly the Mother of God [De Fide]

This De Fide doctrine contains two truths -

1. Mary is truly a mother, that is, she contributed everything to the formation of the human nature of Christ, that every other mother contributes to the formation of the fruit of her body.
2. Mary is truly the Mother of God, that is, she conceived and bore the Second Person of the Divinity, not indeed according to the Divine Nature, but according to the assumed human nature.

There was a beginning of the physical presence of Jesus on earth among mortals in linear time, but I cannot see how this would alter the eternal and unchanging nature of the person of the Son.

It does not alter the eternal and unchanging nature of the Son in HIS divine nature. Nothing could alter that not even His assuming a human nature.

The relationship of God to time is prompting some confusion, I think. The person of the Son is eternally fully God and fully man. His having a temporal beginning does not alter the eternality of His nature.

I would agree, time is confusing and most especially eternity. However to answer the last part of the quoted passage above.

The Hypostatic Union will never cease. [De Fide]

Now one has to ask when the Hypostatic Union took place, and it took place at the Incarnation, so from that point on you are correct. That will always endure and last for eternity.

What does eternal mean? The eternal is that which exists outside of time. It is a concept incomprehensible to humans, who are temporal creatures. But the concepts of “before” and “after” does not apply to the eternal.

I believe the difficulty here that we have is truly establishing if Jesus was fully human and fully God FOR all times or eternity and this would also include before the Incarnation. He could not have been this way before the Incarnation.

As I said, “before” is not really an apt concept. The eternal nature of Christ is fully God and fully Man. This is logically necessitated by the fact that the nature of the trinity is unchanging and eternal, and the nature of the Son is fully God and fully man. There is no point in time, past, present or future, where the eternal presence of the the Trinity is not felt. Likewise, there is no point in the past, present or future where the eternal nature of the Trinity is altered.

You are right the nature of the Trinity does not change you are correct. However Jesus as the second Divine Person at one point in time did not have a human nature. If he did then how in the world could he Assume a nature that he already had? The nature of the Son of being fully God and fully man happened at the moment of the Incarnation and this is why this does not change for all eternity from that point on.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[stanczyk]

Greetings Stanczyk,

When I had compelted posting the second response I was a bit excited to see you were online because I am very interested in what you have to say.

Thanks, and likewise. If I am wrong about anything and to whatever extent I would like to be corrected.

Yeah unfortunately someone else already had the correctly spelled username taken. SO I took this one instead. I think it is funny because I cannot spell very good.

Oh! I just noticed that!

Well I had to dig out some books to do some research on what you are presenting. So it gives me an excuse to delve into Christology which is one of my favourite topics.

Me too, it’s fascinating.

Of whom else would Christ get His human nature from, if not from Mary? If He got it from somewhere else, then how can we call Mary the Mother of God? Jesus had no human father [biological that is] so it would stand that His human nature came from Mary. I shall do some more looking into this as well.

I agree that Mary is truly the Mother of God in every sense of the word. But in researching my response to your response I came across and interesting thought in the Catholic Encylopedia. The consent of Mary at the Annunciation was given to conceive Jesus, but does this mean that humanity’s salvation rested on the free will of Mary? An interesting question I had not considered. The answer is that Mary’s consent, though freely given, was eternally known by God and thus incorporated into His divine plan. To quote directly, “It only means that the consent of Mary was foreseen from all eternity, and therefore was received as essential into the design of God.” Similarly, on the conception of Jesus, I do not think anything was added to the Son, but rather that the Motherhood of Mary was eternally known and eternally part of the makeup of the Son.

I would agree with this. I wished to post some more regarding this.

These are taken from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

[NOTE: I may have to post in separate posts becuase this might get a little long winded.]

Jesus Christ is True God and True Son of God. [De Fide doctrine]

What is says in the first paragraph of the explanation is telling.

We believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is God and man. [Here’s the important part] He is God begotten of the substance of the Father [God] before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother.

I think we can both agree on this one.

Yes, I agree with that.

Actually this supposition goes against this De Fide doctrine. However it will tie in a bit later.

The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception. [De Fide]

…]

You are right the nature of the Trinity does not change you are correct. However Jesus as the second Divine Person at one point in time did not have a human nature. If he did then how in the world could he Assume a nature that he already had? The nature of the Son of being fully God and fully man happened at the moment of the Incarnation and this is why this does not change for all eternity from that point on.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I am with you on a lot of this, but here’s my problem:

“The nature of the Son of being fully God and fully man happened at the moment of the Incarnation and this is why this does not change for all eternity from that point on.”

We can take from the doctrine that “The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception,” that the human nature had a temporal beginning.

But nevertheless, "Christ is One Divine Person (De fide.), and “The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person (De fide.)”

Certainly the conception of Christ was a temporal beginning. But I still do not see how a temporal beginning could have altered the eternal and unchanging Person of the Son. Similar to the temporal consent of Mary to the conception, the temporal beginning of the hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity and divinity, from the point of view of eternity, are the essential and unchanging nature of the Person of the Son. The Person of the son did not exist for “part of eternity” without the hypostatic union, despite the fact that for part of time the hypostatic union did not exist yet. So, in my estimation, it is improper to speak of “eternity from this point on” as this is temporal terminology.

Am I making any sense? I am intrigued to hear your thoughts.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I have heard some similar analogies before, but to point out that they are not accurate. In fact, sometimes these sorts of analogies are inadvertently heretical.

For example, matter cannot be a solid, liquid and gas all at once; ice, water and steam are all different modes of H2O. Thus this analogy seems to imply a heresy called Sabellianism or modalism.

The “front, middle, back” analogy is a new one on me, but I think it fails to capture the concept of three distinct persons of God.

As you astutely observe, the Holy Trinity is a mystery and may very well defy analogy!

well, my point in the matter = solid liquid gas analogy is that we have mountains (solid), seas (liquid), and air (gas) all at the same time, and these are all matter. But solid is not liquid or gas and vice versa.

The same way that front is not the middle or the back, middle is not the front or the back, and back is not the front or the middle. So there you have the distinction of these positions.

 

[stanczyk]

well, my point in the matter = solid liquid gas analogy is that we have mountains (solid), seas (liquid), and air (gas) all at the same time, and these are all matter. But solid is not liquid or gas and vice versa.

The same way that front is not the middle or the back, middle is not the front or the back, and back is not the front or the middle. So there you have the distinction of these positions.

I see what you are saying. Interestingly, there is another thread discussing this same issue. My purpose was not to impute a heresy to you, far from it! And I do sincerely apologize if it cam across that way. But what I mean is that the analogy breaks down if you take it too far. The relationship of the Persons of the Trinity to one another is not like the relationship of the states of matter to one another. I am not too keen on your analogy of mountains, seas and air, either, because, although these things coexist at the same time, they are each of a different substance. For the analogy to truly work, matter of a single substance would need to be able to exist as solid, liquid and gas all at once.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Wow I had to log off there for quite awhile. My brain got fried from the last response to your post. Thinking on the hypostatic Union and such things are lofty things to think about indeed for me. So after some Adoration and quiet time and prayer in the heart I am ready to read and respond.

This topic is certainly one that cannot be responded to in quick order, so I will say ahead of time I will certainly appreciate your patience and understanding if I do not respond to your posts in a timely manner, please be assured though I will respond.

Thanks, and likewise. If I am wrong about anything and to whatever extent I would like to be corrected.

Same here. I am always open to the truth and would hope and pray that I would always have the grace of God to accept it and the gift of faith to believe it.

Me too, it’s fascinating.

I was pretty much thrilled to see that this thread had been reponded to and have had to hold off until now to read it.

I agree that Mary is truly the Mother of God in every sense of the word. But in researching my response to your response I came across and interesting thought in the Catholic Encylopedia. The consent of Mary at the Annunciation was given to conceive Jesus, but does this mean that humanity’s salvation rested on the free will of Mary? An interesting question I had not considered. The answer is that Mary’s consent, though freely given, was eternally known by God and thus incorporated into His divine plan. To quote directly, “It only means that the consent of Mary was foreseen from all eternity, and therefore was received as essential into the design of God.” Similarly, on the conception of Jesus, I do not think anything was added to the Son, but rather that the Motherhood of Mary was eternally known and eternally part of the makeup of the Son.

I am reading St. Louis de Montfort’s book True Devotion to Mary. He has some interesting things to say about the question you raise. I will quote those tomorrow if I can remember.

Yes I agree with what you are saying, however I hold forth that until Mary was actually born in time Jesus could not have assumed His human nature. I’ll go into this later, it is getting rather late and I want to articulate my answer a bit better.

“The nature of the Son of being fully God and fully man happened at the moment of the Incarnation and this is why this does not change for all eternity from that point on.”

We can take from the doctrine that “The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception,” that the human nature had a temporal beginning.

If we do take indeed that his human nature had a temporal beginning then his human nature could not have been eternal before the Incarnation. Would you agree with this? *

But nevertheless, "Christ is One Divine Person (De fide.), and “The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person (De fide.)”

Certainly the conception of Christ was a temporal

beginning. But I still do not see how a temporal beginning could have altered the eternal and unchanging Person of the Son. Similar to the temporal consent of Mary to the conception, the temporal beginning of the hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity and divinity, from the point of view of eternity, are the essential and unchanging nature of the Person of the Son. The Person of the son did not exist for “part of eternity” without the hypostatic union, despite the fact that for part of time the hypostatic union did not exist yet. So, in my estimation, it is improper to speak of “eternity from this point on” as this is temporal terminology.

Am I making any sense? I am intrigued to hear your thoughts.

Okay I am starting to see where the problem might be lying *

It is true that Christ is One Divine Person we both agree on that and it is also true that “The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person” which I also agree on this. We are on the same page here.

Now here comes the tricky part. If I do not make sense by all means ask questions, this is pretty hard for me to articulate.

I think perhaps you are tying in the nature as well as the person together. When one considers it from this angle it can look like a contradiction.

To begin to answer this, may I please have what you understand “Person” and “Nature” to be, becuase if we are on the same page with the words and definitions then we can both get to the answer of this.

Once this answer is given we can go on. I once was told by a very wise priest that if one is unsure of how another is using the words to mean something then always ask what they mean to be on the right page. It has worked to much advantage for both parties involved.

I have really enjoyed in getting to learn more about the hypostatic Union with you as well. Do you have Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book by any chance? Do you have St. Louis De Montfort’s book True Devotion to Mary by any chance? If you do, I can refer you to page numbers and such without having to type everything in.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit**

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I see what you are saying. Interestingly, there is another thread discussing this same issue. My purpose was not to impute a heresy to you, far from it! And I do sincerely apologize if it cam across that way. But what I mean is that the analogy breaks down if you take it too far. The relationship of the Persons of the Trinity to one another is not like the relationship of the states of matter to one another. I am not too keen on your analogy of mountains, seas and air, either, because, although these things coexist at the same time, they are each of a different substance. For the analogy to truly work, matter of a single substance would need to be able to exist as solid, liquid and gas all at once.

It’s okay, no need for apologies I’m not offended in any way. I do acknowledge the fallibility of my analogies, after all, I’m fallible and i just made them all up Got your point too. Truly if we analyze it deeper, these analogies would simply fall. I can’t think of any criticism for this matter=solid liquid gas analogy, until you made your emphasis. Now I see how it fails to successfully demonstrate the Trinity. Thanks!

 

[Jcnava15]

I don’t quite remember but I believe it was Justin Martyr who helped me comprehend the trinity. When I say comprehend, I don’t mean fully understand, I mean thinking its logical.

Justin Martyr(?) against a richer discourse, made an analogy to the flames jumping off a core fire. They are separate, but the same fire at the same time.

 

[stanczyk]

It’s okay, no need for apologies I’m not offended in any way. I do acknowledge the fallibility of my analogies, after all, I’m fallible and i just made them all up Got your point too. Truly if we analyze it deeper, these analogies would simply fall. I can’t think of any criticism for this matter=solid liquid gas analogy, until you made your emphasis. Now I see how it fails to successfully demonstrate the Trinity. Thanks!

Hey, that’s nice of you to say You’re quite welcome. I remember the first time I heard the water analogy, and I was struck by how good it seems, at first blush it sounds pretty darn apt. But then somebody explained to me the problem with it, and I was equally struck by how problematic it is. So I am glad to be able to pass it on.

 

[stanczyk]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Wow I had to log off there for quite awhile. My brain got fried from the last response to your post. Thinking on the hypostatic Union and such things are lofty things to think about indeed for me. So after some Adoration and quiet time and prayer in the heart I am ready to read and respond.

That is the best frame of mind to be in! I just got back from Mass, myself.

And I agree, trying to come to grips with these complex issues can make me feel like my head is going to explode.

This topic is certainly one that cannot be responded to in quick order, so I will say ahead of time I will certainly appreciate your patience and understanding if I do not respond to your posts in a timely manner, please be assured though I will respond.

Same here. I am always open to the truth and would hope and pray that I would always have the grace of God to accept it and the gift of faith to believe it.

I was pretty much thrilled to see that this thread had been reponded to and have had to hold off until now to read it.

Thanks! No rush.

I am reading St. Louis de Montfort’s book True Devotion to Mary. He has some interesting things to say about the question you raise. I will quote those tomorrow if I can remember.

Yes I agree with what you are saying, however I hold forth that until Mary was actually born in time Jesus could not have assumed His human nature. I’ll go into this later, it is getting rather late and I want to articulate my answer a bit better.

Looking forward to it. I am glad to have a theologian-to-be weigh in on this. Congrats on pursuing an excellent course of study, by the way!

If we do take indeed that his human nature had a temporal beginning then his human nature could not have been eternal before the Incarnation. Would you agree with this? *
*

I don’t think I can agree to that, because I think that the concept of “before” doesn’t apply to the eternal, as the eternal exists outside of time. The idea that the human nature had a temporal beginning would certainly seem to imply that there was a point in time before the beginning. But this period before the temporal beginning does not alter the eternal, unchanging nature of the Person of the Son as fully God and fully Man, which exists unchanging and outside of temporality.
Anathama Sit;8568943:

Okay I am starting to see where the problem might be lying *

It is true that Christ is One Divine Person we both agree on that and it is also true that “The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person” which I also agree on this. We are on the same page here.

Now here comes the tricky part. If I do not make sense by all means ask questions, this is pretty hard for me to articulate.

I think perhaps you are tying in the nature as well as the person together. When one considers it from this angle it can look like a contradiction.*

Indeed, there is an apparent paradox between the temporal beginning of hypostatic union of the human and divine natures and the unchangeability of the Person of the Son. What I am arguing is that this is only an apparent paradox, and that the eternality of the Son in hypostatic union does not contradict a temporal beginning of that hypostatic union.

To begin to answer this, may I please have what you understand “Person” and “Nature” to be, becuase if we are on the same page with the words and definitions then we can both get to the answer of this.

Once this answer is given we can go on. I once was told by a very wise priest that if one is unsure of how another is using the words to mean something then always ask what they mean to be on the right page. It has worked to much advantage for both parties involved.

I have really enjoyed in getting to learn more about the hypostatic Union with you as well. Do you have Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book by any chance? Do you have St. Louis De Montfort’s book True Devotion to Mary by any chance? If you do, I can refer you to page numbers and such without having to type everything in.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

Maybe this is the problem. I am hard pressed to give a definition of “Person” here that is not faulty or circular in some way. I could say that the person is the individual, but this would be an insufficient definition insofar as the the three Persons of the Trinity are at once unified and individual.

Nature is a bit easier for me to define, as I think what we mean with this word is pretty much the same as what the English word “nature” typically means. The physical properties of a thing, essentially.

I have not read Dr. Ott, nor have I read True Devotion to Mary. But thank you for the reading list, I will be sure to check them out!

Looking forward to hearing your next riposte, I will be back sometime Monday afternoon.

 

[jochoa]

My friend, stanczyk,
Thank you very much for recognizing my sincerity and sharing your thoughts. Before any further discussion, please recognize that although I deeply enjoy pondering the Mystery, I think it is far more important to focus on Jesus’ words regarding and surrounding the Greatest Commandments, for it is the foundation of Wisdom. Also, please recognize that the intentions of discussing this Mystery with you is to help me grow closer to the Christian God of Catholicism, hopefully help others grow closer to God, and to subject my understandings to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, Reality, and proper use of grammar. With that said, I look forward to discussing with you.

This is a tricky area, of course, so please do not take this the wrong way since I am certain of your sincerity, but what you are describing here is not correct. The human nature of the Son is not separable from the divine nature. Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

I still think that this would align with God having a physical body.
Considering the updated understanding: If the person of the Son of God has a physical body while on earth and eternally after resurrection, and the Son of God is fully God, then either God must always have a physical body, or God changes and His exact image becomes His physical body.

On this note, I would like to share a personal concept of the Mystery, which is intended to demonstrate a logical, reasonable, open to revision, understanding to the Mystery (which in discussion can be justified well within Catholicism) and to provide hope and inspiration in those who accept the challenge.

The following has been interpreted from the Scripture defining the Greatest Commandments, and is still in drafting stages.
First, please note, I use the following terms in strict alignment with the following definitions:
A person/spirit has an immaterial being (image and knowledge) and/or a material being (body and thoughts).
The person’s being has a will which proceeds from the being.
The person/spirit operates according to a nature (the how and why a person does what s/he does.)
Although the image/body, thoughts/knowledge, and will are each distinct components of a person, every instance of each component is fully necessary to complete the person. Every action of the person is fully of the components combined. Every instance of each component also operates fully according to the person’s nature.
The nature can be further recognized as the combination of the following:
-the qualities of patience, kindness, and motivation
-the desiring of peace, happiness, and energy
-the achievement of patience/peace, kindness/happiness, and motivation/energy
This combination of factors can be applied to every single action of a person’s thoughts, body, and will.
Therefore, the pinnacle of person is all components working together in unity according to a Godly/Truly Loving Nature, as interpreted from the Greatest Commandments: always being and spreading the means to being perfectly patient, kind, and motivated, with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will towards others and the self, which obtains unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy as a society and individual.
Any nature that is in partial alignment with God’s Nature is Human Nature.

To Recognize a Simple, and working, Concept of the Holy Trinity:
God’s person/spirit/being has a body/image, thoughts/knowledge, and a will which proceeds from the being.
Since it can be interpreted that God imaged what was to happen to bring free-willed beings to choose to Love prior to Creation, after imaging what was to happen, God became flesh. God becoming flesh can be interpreted as each distinct component of God’s being became tangible/material.
God’s thoughts/knowledge becoming material is the imaging of how to achieve God’s goal of having free willed beings to be One with His nature. Therefore, God’s thoughts are fully the knowledge of the Father, and are fully everything that happens. Since the Father is the immaterial spirit of God with an image, knowledge, and will, the Father is a person. And since the Father alone does not have the complete body and will of God, the Father is a Distinct Person. Throughout time the Father is revealed first.
God’s body becoming material is the imaging of what exactly God would do if He came down from heaven to direct people to the complete purpose. Therefore, God’s image/body is fully the image/body of the Father and the Son. Since the Son does not share the complete thoughts/knowledge, nor will of God, the Son is a distinct person. Throughout time the Son is revealed second. It can also be said that the Son completes the Body of God.
God’s will is the imaging of His actions to lead free willed beings to be One with His nature, is being revealed as material throughout time. Therefore, His will is fully the will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit does not have the exact image/body, nor thoughts/knowledge, nor will of God, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Throughout time the Holy Spirit is revealed third. It can also be said that the Holy Spirit completes the Will of God.
Since…
-Each distinct person is fully of God
-Each instance of God’s person is fully of God’s nature
-Each comonent is inseparable from one another. For without one instance of any component, God would not be God.
It can be said that God is the Father and God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit and God is the Holy Trinity OR 3 Persons in 1 Person.

The Challenge:
Recognize that you have a Free Will just like God.
Recognize that you are learning about Jesus and God, therefore you are somewhat proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Recognize that you could be the Holy Spirit we are waiting for, so go and use all your being to become One in God’s Nature as Jesus Did according to Catholicism!

Thoughts?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

I found some definitions some of the terms and wanted to see what you thought. This are the definitions that I work with. These are not my own, much greater men and saints have already done the foot work for me and it is thanks to them [and of course God’s grace and the light of the Holy Spirit] that I can grow in more understanding and wisdom of the mysteries of God. I will not fully understand them but the more I learn the more I fall in love with God.

I know a great deal may seem extemporeanus at first but it will tie in the end. [This is taken from the Summa Theolgica by St. Thomas Acquinas however it is taken from a book Tour of the Summa by Msgr. Paul J. Glen another reference that is great to have.] *

Relation [The Divine Relations] - A relation is the standing of a thing with reference to something other. A relation or relationship, exists between things that can be in some way referred to one another. In God there are real proceedings [let me know if I need to write out what this means as well], and in consequence there are real relations in God.

A real relation in God cannot be an accidental, for there are no accidentals in God. As a thing, an entity, a real relation in God is one with the divine essence.

The Divine Persons -

A Person is a complete substance of the rational order.

A person is a substance, not an accidental. A person is a complete and subsistent substance, not a mere member or part of a greater substance. A person is of the rational order, or has a rational nature, that is, a person has [at least fundamentally] understanding and free will.

Applied to God the name person means a divine relation as subsisting, that is, as perfectly existing in the order of infinite substance. What actually substis is, as we have said, the divine nature and essence itself. The undivided nature of God subsits perfectly in each of the three Persons, so that, while they are really distinct Persons, they are ona dn the same God.

Persons and Essence in God

Because God is absolutely simple in His being, the divine relations, as things or entities, are identified with God’s essence. Essence in God is not really distinct from Person, and still the three Persons are really distinct from one another. They are real relations in God which involve relative opposition in their terminals [The Persons] but not at all in their essence.

Therefore the threee Persons in God, while really distinct from one another, are one and the same undivided and indivisible divine essence.

---

God in His Essence and in His Personhood is unchanging and eternal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit*

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Not that this really explains the Trinity per se, but the language of three “persons” -

our pastor was explaining that we tend to think of “persons” in a pyschological sense, as individual human beings with independent minds and so forth. But the term “person” as it is used in describing the Trinity is more akin to the Greek theatrical sense of “personae”, where a single actor might use different masks to portray multiple characters. Not that God is like an actor with three masks, but suddenly to me that demystified how we can have one God with three “persons” - the word “person” doesn’t only have to refer to distinct and separate “beings” as we tend to think of it.

Going on our pastor also described Augustine’s conception of Trinity, involving the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love between them.