Incarnation is a false concept

[grannymh]

Of course you don’t.
Unlike Granny and others I am critiquing your limited philosophic frame of reference and refusing to operate within it because to do so would be to accept your limited framework.

But instead of lifting your head up and seeing a bigger framework you more doggedly look to the ground and effectively keep saying “what do you think of my proof that bumble bees cannot fly” .

If I were to assist Granny I would suggest change is appropriately predicated of Jesus’s divine “hypostasis” but not of His Divine nature.

But “hypostasis” is so difficult a philosophic concept that I don’t think anyone here is capable of maintaining a coherent discussion on this myself included.

Bahman, I recommend Balthasar’s Cosmic Liturgy vol one (preceded by at least a Bachelors in Scholastic Philosophy) if you really want to pursue this angle that works even within your very narrow frame of reference.

When we start with the “hypostasis” one Person, there is no change because the one Person Jesus Christ continues to be the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. This Person’s nature is super-natural, that is, Divine.

When we begin with one Divine Person, we therefore have one Divine Nature for that one Person. The theological or common sense question is --Can the one Divine Person add a lower level nature to His Person. Being Divine is being all powerful. Therefore, we can say that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity has the power of adding a lower level nature to His Person. We need to keep in mind that human nature is on a lower level than the Divine nature. Human nature is not the same as Divine Nature. Nor does it have the power of Divine Nature.

The way to solve the difficulty is to insist on the word assume. The Catholic Church uses the word assume and not absorb. Check out the difference.

Being on a lower level that is not divine, there is no way human nature has power over the Divine Nature. Nor has the human nature the power to alter Divine Nature. Nor has the human nature power over the Divine Person. Therefore, the status of one Divine Person with a Divine Nature remains intact.

Assuming a human nature is simply adding or taking on an additional, yet lower, nature. Assuming a human nature works because the one Divine Person has the power to do this. Therefore, the Incarnation is a valid concept which did take place.

There is a change in mathematics going from 1 to 2 natures. But this addition, 1 +1 equals 2 does not have the power to change the Divine Person into something else. Nor does mathematics have the power to change either Divine Nature or human nature into something else. Neither can mathematics destroy Divine Nature or human nature.

This demonstration focuses on the power source. Once that is firmly established with a Divine Person being in charge, then it is possible to reason that assuming the human nature does not involve substantial changes in God, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Going from 1 to 2 is simply an explanation without power.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When we start with the “hypostasis” one Person, there is no change

Well that’s a subtle and thorny issue I am not going to debate but will only observe that:
(a) Hypostasis and Person are not totally univocal concepts.
(b) Jesus’s hypostasis was not the same after the incarnation. That in ordinary vernacular is a form of “change”.

BTW what source are you paraphrasing Granny?

 

[grannymh]

Well that’s a subtle and thorny issue I am not going to debate but will only observe that:
(a) Hypostasis and Person are not totally univocal concepts.
(b) Jesus’s hypostasis was not the same after the incarnation. That in ordinary vernacular is a form of “change”.

BTW what source are you paraphrasing Granny?

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
HYPOSTATIC UNION: The union of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person (Greek: hypostasis) of the Son of God, Jesus Christ (252, 468).

Beginning of CCC 470
**470 **Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed,”97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation,

 

[Blue_Horizon]

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
HYPOSTATIC UNION: The union of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person (Greek: hypostasis) of the Son of God, Jesus Christ (252, 468).

Beginning of CCC 470
**470 **Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed,”97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation,

One may need to dig much deeper than the very worthy Cathechism, or a commentary thereof, to start addressing the heavyweight theological issues of change and hypostasis .

 

[Bahman]

What exactly is the difference between God and us?

God is the creator whereas we are creatures. I have to confess that the provided definition is just for sake of argument. I don’t really know that what we are and what God really is. I can however say that there are problems in Catholic definition of what God is and what we are.

 

[Bahman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
When we describe God as changeless, what is it about God that cannot change?

We are interested in nature change when we are dealing with incarnation.

If I am correctly understanding that God’s nature cannot change, that would mean that the Incarnation is a true concept – simply because the nature of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity cannot change. Therefore, the nature of Jesus Christ on earth remains the same as His nature in the Most Holy Trinity. Therefore, there is no change in the nature of God. Thus, the Incarnation is a true concept.

Because God’s nature cannot change, Jesus Christ retains His divine nature. Therefore, there is no change in God’s nature in the Incarnation. Thus, the Incarnation is a true concept.

The human being Jesus is assumed and we are dealing with a change in second person of trinity because he has two natures after incarnation, namely divine and human, whereas he had one nature before incarnation.

 

[Bahman]

Article 7. Whether the union of the Divine nature and the human is anything created?
I answer that, The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above (I, 13, 7), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something created.

That cannot be correct because we have four persons instead of three if the union is a relation between divine and human nature.

 

[Bahman]

Of course you don’t.
Unlike Granny and others I am critiquing your limited philosophic frame of reference and refusing to operate within it because to do so would be to accept your limited framework.

What is wrong in my limited framework? How could you judge that it is limited without discussing it throughly?

But instead of lifting your head up and seeing a bigger framework you more doggedly look to the ground and effectively keep saying “what do you think of my proof that bumble bees cannot fly” .

I am open to hear from you so I could extend my world view. It seems that you have something to offer.

If I were to assist Granny I would suggest change is appropriately predicated of Jesus’s divine “hypostasis” but not of His Divine nature.

But “hypostasis” is so difficult a philosophic concept that I don’t think anyone here is capable of maintaining a coherent discussion on this myself included.

Bahman, I recommend Balthasar’s Cosmic Liturgy vol one (preceded by at least a Bachelors in Scholastic Philosophy) if you really want to pursue this angle that works even within your very narrow frame of reference.

I am afraid that I don’t have time to read a book. I wish that someone in here can help us.

 

[grannymh]

God is the creator whereas we are creatures. I have to confess that the provided definition is just for sake of argument. I don’t really know that what we are and what God really is. I can however say that there are problems in Catholic definition of what God is and what we are.

“God is the creator whereas we are creatures.” I do not see any problems with that very basic difference.

I will have to continue this later.

 

[KLM789]

Sorry that you have it backwards. People were changed by incarnation, not God.

 

[Vico]

That cannot be correct because we have four persons instead of three if the union is a relation between divine and human nature.

Not four. The divine Persons relations of opposition which only pertains to divine not creatures.

 

[grannymh]

That cannot be correct because we have four persons instead of three if the union is a relation between divine and human nature.

As long as God is being attacked, why not five persons and a dog or two.

 

[grannymh]

As long as God is being attacked, how about five persons and a dog or two.

 

[Vico]

That cannot be correct because we have four persons instead of three if the union is a relation between divine and human nature.

To clarify, a new person was not created, rather the Word of God assumed a body from the first instant of conception with the rational soul united with the body.

 

[Bahman]

Not four. The divine Persons relations of opposition which only pertains to divine not creatures.

Yes you have four person: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the creature who has a relation with Son.

 

[Bahman]

As long as God is being attacked, how about five persons and a dog or two.

Yes, that makes sense too.

 

[Bahman]

To clarify, a new person was not created, rather the Word of God assumed a body from the first instant of conception with the rational soul united with the body.

But you mentioned in your post, post #108, that human person is created.

 

[Vico]

But you mentioned in your post, post #108, that human person is created.

What I quoted in post #108 is from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Q3, A7
newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article7

St. Thomas speaks of the union created in the human nature, not a new person. A “relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God”.

It is not a change in God, however; God is abstract, not a concrete Person but nature. Did you read the other posts (Aquinas and my comments), so you could understand?

For example:
Article 7. Whether the union of the Divine nature and the human is anything created?
I answer that, The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above (I, 13, 7), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something created.

 

[Bahman]

What I quoted in post #108 is from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Q3, A7
newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article7

St. Thomas speaks of the union created in the human nature, not a new person. A “relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God”.

He is clearly talking about creature.

 

[Vico]

He is clearly talking about creature.

Yes, not a new person however there is a new human nature: “The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature” … “but in the human nature, which is a creature”.