Only the Second Person incarnated?

[spiderweb]

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.

I think that is the right idea. Consider our own baptism. Washed in the blood of Christ, we have put on Christ: justification through the Son, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and received in adoption by the Father as heirs to the Kingdom (Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 6:11, Gal 4:4-7). Yet it is precisely these three distinct actions that together make the one act of baptism what it is and not the different action of getting a bath.

Each person of the trinity is completely and fully God. Therefore each person individually has the power, authority, knowledge, etc. to do anything and everything that God does. However, due to the nature of the Godhead being One God, there is nothing that the individual person does without the participation of the other persons in some manner. Since God is perfect love, I would even suggest that their distinct actions in any given operation (action) are somehow also equal in glory, power, etc.

The operation of God is a divine mystery. While we can kind of grasp it, it remains somewhat elusive as well. As St. Paul writes,* “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Cor 13:12)*.

 

[Richca]

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

All three persons of the Holy Trinity took part in the incarnation of the eternal Son of God, that is, in the making or creation of the humanity of Jesus Christ but only God the Son assumed the human nature. All three persons of the Holy Trinity take part in what is called ad extra works of the Trinity such as is creation and whatever involves creatures. But again, only God the Son assumed a human nature and became incarnated as a man. ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14).

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God is three Persons in one nature.
Jesus is one Person with two natures.

Non sequitur, at least within the confines of specificity regarding the topic at hand

Perhaps the simplicity of
“God is three Persons in one nature.”
“Jesus is one Person with two natures”

is why there is a non sequitur.

The title of this thread is “Only the Second Person incarnated?” The Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is the “one Lord Jesus Christ” Who “came down from heaven,” and “by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary*” *and *"*became man." The citations in italics are from the Creed Catholics profess at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Keeping in touch with the Second Person incarnated in the thread’s topic, we have to ask “How did this Divine Person and only this Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became man?”

Please. How would you answer that question?

 

[worldwideweary]

Perhaps the simplicity of
“God is three Persons in one nature.”
“Jesus is one Person with two natures”

is why there is a non sequitur.

The title of this thread is “Only the Second Person incarnated?” The Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is the “one Lord Jesus Christ” Who “came down from heaven,” and “by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary*” *and *"*became man." The citations in italics are from the Creed Catholics profess at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Keeping in touch with the Second Person incarnated in the thread’s topic, we have to ask “How did this Divine Person and only this Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became man?”

Please. How would you answer that question?

Maybe it wasn’t non-sequitur, but it surely didn’t answer the question.
Let’s view it as an healthy reminder for anyone attempting to answer or ponder the question.
At any rate, I have the privilege of waiting for an accurate and satisfactory answer before attempting to formulate a defense on my own, don’t I?
I suppose some could say it was answered already, but just because it was answered doesn’t mean it fully clarified how “inseparable in action” is met with particular actions for each one in unison. It seems that’s what you’ll get here for an answer though: i.e., each person performed different actions but were inseparable in those actions.

It seems the same could be said for any actions performed by God.

By the way, an interesting thing about the creed is that it doesn’t seem to mention the “creation” of the human will and intellect of Jesus, yet of course his coming down and becoming man is. It is said that there are two intellects and wills in the one Divine person with one set of intellects/wills being human, but this doesn’t give rise to two persons, only one, and that person is Divine. To say He came down and became man is to include this, it seems, but it doesn’t sound that way at first hearing. I wouldn’t be surprised if many Catholics (or any so-called Bible adherents) don’t know the teaching that it is defined that there are two intellects and two wills in one person, at least not in that way of using the language. It seems to be correct to say that the act of “incarnation” is the act of creating the human intellect and will and not just the formulated flesh through Mary linked with the divine Person. How this might help guide in answering the question is altogether another issue.

The Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is the “one Lord Jesus Christ”

Remember that it is the human-ness of Jesus that allows him to function as High-Priest. If this be not the case, it also needs clarification.

 

[PluniaZ]

“How did this Divine Person and only this Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became man?”

newadvent.org/summa/4006.htm

 

[grannymh]

the simplicity of
“God is three Persons in one nature.”
*“Jesus is one Person with two natures” *
begins with God’s nature which is Divine.

It is my understanding that nature is what defines and separates creatures into species. For example: the distinct difference between birds and beavers and humans.
Genesis 1: 27 usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

Genesis 1: 27 explains why our nature is peerless among the creatures on earth.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Creator of creatures is a super-natural Divine Being with the emphasis on Divine Nature. Guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has declared the truth of the Most Holy Trinity and its Divine Nature. For the purpose of this thread, we can accept that there are three Divine Persons in One Divine Nature. The creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass affirms the existence of three Persons.

The issue involves the basic teaching that a Divine Person can assume a second nature which is not Divine. The Catholic Church says that yes, an individual Divine Person can assume a second nature which is a human nature and not a Devine nature.

Another way of looking at the issue is to recognize that the Creator God has the power to create a nature other than its own. (Genesis 1: 27 above) And a human nature per se does not have the power to replace the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. If a human nature could replace a Divine Nature, then the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would disappear.

Yes, the above is a mind game. One aspect is to emphasize the importance of the Second Person’s power which is proper when one considers the Divine Nature as a whole.

It is not necessary to respond to this post. I have nothing more to add.