Only the Second Person incarnated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter worldwideweary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

worldwideweary

Guest
As referenced in a recent post:

CCC 267 states: Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do.
But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in
the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

Question: How can it be singly expressed that the second-person incarnated but not the first or the third person if each person is inseparable in what they do, i.e. are inseparable in action since to incarnate is an action?

Thanks for any anticipated clarification 👍
 
worldwideweary said:
As referenced in a recent post:

CCC 267 states: Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do.
But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in
the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

Question: How can it be singly expressed that the second-person incarnated but not the first or the third person if each person is inseparable in what they do, i.e. are inseparable in action since to incarnate is an action?

Thanks for any anticipated clarification 👍
Click to expand...
The Church struggled to understand this fully for 600 years, until the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681 settled the last Christological controversies.

I would start with this: newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm
 
Thank you for the reference, but I find no illumination in any of the words in the article due to a previous familiarity with them. The last paragraph under the title Hypostatic Union is the closest to this topic, and it points out that to attribute more than one person to Christ is condemned as of A.D. 430.

The question still remains: if there be one person in Christ and that person is not human but Divine: e.g. the Second person of the Trinity, and each person of the Trinity must act in full accord as this restriction is represented in the catechism quoted, why is not Christ three persons, especially as St. Paul writes that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead?

Or, what was the Second Person of the Trinity doing that the First and Third Persons weren’t doing, even though it’s defined that they must be inseparable in what they do?
 
worldwideweary said:
Thank you for the reference, but I find no illumination in any of the words in the article due to a previous familiarity with them. The last paragraph under the title Hypostatic Union is the closest to this topic, and it points out that to attribute more than one person to Christ is condemned as of A.D. 430.

The question still remains: if there be one person in Christ and that person is not human but Divine: e.g. the Second person of the Trinity, and each person of the Trinity must act in full accord as this restriction is represented in the catechism quoted, why is not Christ three persons, especially as St. Paul writes that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead?

Or, what was the Second Person of the Trinity doing that the First and Third Persons weren’t doing, even though it’s defined that they must be inseparable in what they do?
Click to expand...
This can’t be answered in this thread. Not by me anyway. The link I gave you contains plenty of links for further reading. The texts of the Church Councils are also available here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

And even Wikipedia can point you to further reading:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
 
Thanks for trying and the links.
I ask kindly that if you come across anything directly dealing with the issue to consider revisiting this thread with a post 🙂
 
I think it emphasizes that they act as one and will as one. They all acted as one in the Incarnation of the Son.
 
Wesrock said:
I think it emphasizes that they act as one and will as one. They all acted as one in the Incarnation of the Son.
Click to expand...
This seems legitimate, but then the question remains whether the Persons all act as one in the maintenance of hypostatic unity with the human nature of Jesus? If they do, why is it said only the second person is hypostatically unified?
 
worldwideweary said:
This seems legitimate, but then the question remains whether the Persons all act as one in the maintenance of hypostatic unity with the human nature of Jesus? If they do, why is it said only the second person is hypostatically unified?
Click to expand...
Having one will, yes, I think the hypostatic union is always an act of God in Trinity. As to why it is only the Son who is in the hypostatic union, I’m not sure. It is dogma that the one nature of God with one Intellect and Will is “shared” equally by three Persons. It is not necessarily a contradiction that the person of Jesus is hypostatically to only one. In one direction (God down to Jesus), it’s one act as there is only one will. In the other direction (Jesus’ himan nature to God), there are three Persons which could be united to. It isn’t required that he be united to all three.

I am sure there is theological analysis out there on the Son being the Word of God, and therefore it follows that the Word is the revelation given/spoken to Creation and Man, such that it is most apt that it would be the Son to Incarnate into creation itself to speak, to be seen, to reveal, to be what God acts through. Certainly early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr associated the Son in all of God’s theophanies from Abraham through Moses (the burning bush and the finger of God that inscribed the commandments), such that God acts in all things through the Son. But right now I’m just speaking from memory, and we know how reliable that can be.
 
God is three Persons in one nature.
Jesus is one Person with two natures.
 
pianistclare said:
You’re hung up on the word “person”.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting your words be seen, although their contribution pertaining to the topic has eluded my understanding.

Off-topic: P.S. I notice your usage of the period post close-quote. I started breaking away from the American-style myself after reading the Nova Vulgata 🙂
... had to edit this response for refinement purposes ;) ]
 
Perhaps it will help to think of the the baptism of Jesus. The Father spoke, the Holy Spirit descended, and the Son was baptized. All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the baptism, but they all participated with a separate and distinct action.

At the incarnation the Son became man, by the will of the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

As the CCC states as quoted in the main post “But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit”.
 
spiderweb said:
Perhaps it will help to think of the the baptism of Jesus. The Father spoke, the Holy Spirit descended, and the Son was baptized. All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the baptism, but they all participated with a separate and distinct action.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about your expression is that baptism could be seen as one act and not a distinct set of actions: a distinct “showing forth” (e.g. multiple sensations rather than multiple actions) as in the CCC’s words. What do I mean? May it be that speech, descent, and immersion within water are all one and the same action? This is especially in light of Genesis’ referring to water and God’s spirit moving on the face of the waters prior to that sharp Latin phrase Fiat Lux (No offense to the Greek γενηθήτω φῶς or Hebrew’s yə·hî ’ō·wr) …

This seems worthy of meditation, although it is just an exercise.
 
worldwideweary said:
Thank you for the reference, but I find no illumination in any of the words in the article due to a previous familiarity with them. The last paragraph under the title Hypostatic Union is the closest to this topic, and it points out that to attribute more than one person to Christ is condemned as of A.D. 430.

The question still remains: if there be one person in Christ and that person is not human but Divine: e.g. the Second person of the Trinity, and each person of the Trinity must act in full accord as this restriction is represented in the catechism quoted, why is not Christ three persons, especially as St. Paul writes that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead?

Or, what was the Second Person of the Trinity doing that the First and Third Persons weren’t doing, even though it’s defined that they must be inseparable in what they do?
Click to expand...
In spirit form, they are inseparable. In the incarnated form,
  1. it would be unnatural to have 3 persons taking up residence in one human body
  2. the 3 remained inseparable in spirit form i.e. Jesus on Good Friday, the body died but the Godhead remained intact. There is no time where the Trinity was dissoluted.
Or are we confused as to what inseparable entails? The Father gives, the Son receives. The inseparable-ness of the Trinity surely does not prevent the Father from giving to the Son everything. Nor prevent the Father from sending the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top