Out of all the religions - Why Christianity?

[Servant19]

The Catholic Church dealt with immanence extensively in early councils, and resolved it. This is some history from the International Theological Comission (1979):

1. … At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.

…
5. During the controversies between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, it was difficult to perceive how transcendence, that is, the distinction between the two natures, could be reconciled with immanence, that is, the hypostatic union. In a.d. 451 the Council of Chalcedon (DS 301-2) undertook to show how the two viewpoints could be reconciled by having recourse to two expressions at the same time: “without confusion” (asygchytos) and “without division” (adiairetos). We can see there the apophatic equivalent of the formula that affirms “the two natures and the one hypostasis” of Christ. “Without confusion” obviously refers to the two natures and asserts that the humanity of Jesus is an authentic one. In keeping with the wishes of the anti-Arians, this formula bears witness at the same time to God’s transcendence, for God is said to remain God, while man remains man. It excludes any intermediate state between divinity and humanity. “Without division” proclaims the very deep and irreversible union of God and man in the person of the world. God’s full immanence in the world is asserted as well. It is on this immanence that Christian salvation and man’s divinization are grounded.

…
6. … the definition of Chalcedon radically transcends Greek thought, for it lets coexist two viewpoints that Greek philosophy had always regarded as irreconcilable: divine transcendence, the very soul of the Platonic system, and divine immanence, which is the spirit of the Stoic theory.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html

Humbly Vico, one cannot say that the problem of transcendence and immanence is resolved by simply saying that “God is immanent and transcendent at the same time, and we call this the hypostatic union”

The equivalent is to say that I am a human and a horse at the same time and we call this “trans- species union”
…we are either genetically human or horse. We don’t fit square pegs into round holes…

So when these Councils get together and they all sit down and say “we undertook to show how the two viewpoints could be reconciled”, where does Tradition fit into all this?

Is this the “actual” teaching of Jesus spoken of with His own mouth to the Apostles and passed down through Oral Tradition or was this a matter that was discussed and extrapolated through the application of known theologies?

Please be honest can you trully say that it makes sense to your sincerity and reason that God can be transcendent and immanent in essence all at the same time, without it being pantheism?

.

 

[Vico]

Humbly Vico, one cannot say that the problem of transcendence and immanence is resolved by simply saying that “God is immanent and transcendent at the same time, and we call this the hypostatic union”

The equivalent is to say that I am a human and a horse at the same time and we call this “trans- species union”
…we are either genetically human or horse. We don’t fit square pegs into round holes…

So when these Councils get together and they all sit down and say “we undertook to show how the two viewpoints could be reconciled”, where does Tradition fit into all this?

Is this the “actual” teaching of Jesus spoken of with His own mouth to the Apostles and passed down through Oral Tradition or was this a matter that was discussed and extrapolated through the application of known theologies?

Please be honest can you trully say that it makes sense to your sincerity and reason that God can be transcendent and immanent in essence all at the same time, without it being pantheism?

.

I will not go into what is oral and what is written, because I am not expert in that topic.

The councils did not merely say what you have quoted. It took much time and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to find the precise words to use, particularly since the terms used in that day were appropriated from prior philosophies but modified for Christianity. They sought to express the mystery revealed by Christ, an effort that took hundreds of years and involved schisms.

Yes, it makes sense to me without being pantheism.

Human nature can be conceived to be united to the person of the Word of God, not the nature, and manhood can be attributed to the person of the Word who assumes it, not to the divine nature.

 

[Lucretius]

Is this the “actual” teaching of Jesus spoken of with His own mouth to the Apostles and passed down through Oral Tradition or was this a matter that was discussed and extrapolated through the application of known theologies?

Sacred Tradition shouldn’t be understood as merely words that were not written down, but also more like insights. rituals, a lifestyle, etc.: things you can’t even possibly write down.

Here’s a resource: sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/unwritten-tradition/

Please be honest can you trully say that it makes sense to your sincerity and reason that God can be transcendent and immanent in essence all at the same time, without it being pantheism?

I can’t sit down and consider this right now, but here is the standard Thomist answer: aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

Notice that we can use reason to dismiss pantheism, according to St. Thomas.

Good luck in your thinking

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Della]

I appreciate you being honest about not listening, and you don’t have to if you don’t want to. But I feel like you got the wrong impression of me from what you saw.

If I believe I know where a speaker is going, since my time like all of ours is limited, I don’t go on listening. I didn’t get an impression of you from you citing the video, but it’s true that on a forum it can be hard to understand where others are coming from. All one has to go by is what people post.

I always take this to God in prayer, including every time I engage in conversations like this. I’ve been praying to him all throuought these two years, dedicating rosaries to the petition of understanding his truth. I always try to keep an open mind to what God might be trying to teach me.

That’s good–not that you need me to say so. We should all be endeavoring to understand. Of course, we can get lost in the process if we over-think everything. There is a point at which we take things on faith–trusting in those in authority. We don’t trust the Magisterium of the Church, for instance, because they are flawless, no one is, but we trust that Christ gave them the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. In the end, it is Christ we are trusting not merely the decisions of men.

I admit the video doesn’t really show any of this off, because that wasn’t really the point of the video. It was specifically meant to cover the intellectual side of things, like Aquainas did in the Summa Theologica (not that I have anywhere near his understanding of philosophy).

Aquinas, when he wrote as a theologian, was attempting to do discuss some things and not others, so yes, we sometimes need to read other authors who better address those things we’d like answered.

I have read some Lewis (Screwtape, Great Divorce, parts of Mere Christianity), but neither of the other guys. I’ll make a note of them!

Lewis is good. His thinking is a distillation of others he read, such as Chesterton. And Fulton Sheen, who was brilliant in his own right, had been greatly influenced by Chesterton, as well. Chesterton can be a bit daunting. He loved to use paradox to make his points. If you know that before reading his writings, it will help you to better see his points. He wrote the popular Father Brown series of detective stories besides being a journalist and an essayist. His book about St. Francis and St. Thomas Aquinas are brilliant, inspiring and filled with wisdom. Chesterton loved the ordinary person and saw the holiness and beauty in ordinary things.

You may also want to read such saints as St. Therese of Lisieux or others whose writings are geared more towards lay people. Ask your pastor for some suggestions. I’m sure others on CAF could give you other good suggestions, as well. You may want to start a new thread for that, seeing that this one has strayed from your original topic.

 

[Servant19]

I will not go into what is oral and what is written, because I am not expert in that topic.

The councils did not merely say what you have quoted. It took much time and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to find the precise words to use, particularly since the terms used in that day were appropriated from prior philosophies but modified for Christianity. They sought to express the mystery revealed by Christ, an effort that took hundreds of years and involved schisms.

Yes, it makes sense to me without being pantheism.

Human nature can be conceived to be united to the person of the Word of God, not the nature, and manhood can be attributed to the person of the Word who assumes it, not to the divine nature.

Thankyou Vico.

I appreciate where you are coming from.

For me, unless someone in a Council comes in and said Jesus said “ABC” about God’s immanence and said “DEF” about God’s transcendence and He also said “GHI” about how they relate, then all else is a “hope” that the conclusions made were the Truth, and a “hope” that the conclusions made were from the Holy Spirit.

For me, simplicity of God means that He cannot be contradictory things. He cannot be immanent and transcendent at the same time in His essence.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that God’s transcendence is ontological. His immanence is epistemological.

From my understanding, this is also Catholic teaching. The phrases Deus a Se and Deus pro nobis were a seed to this Truth. Deus a Se being His ontological transcendence and Essence, Deus pro nobis, being His immanent Names and Attributes.

For me, this makes sense, this is simplicity and this reflects the observable reality around us in the universe and fits very nicely with logic ad rational thinking and lacks confusion, which are necessities to give us a glimpse into God and His ways

.

 

[Vico]

Thankyou Vico.

I appreciate where you are coming from.

For me, unless someone in a Council comes in and said Jesus said “ABC” about God’s immanence and said “DEF” about God’s transcendence and He also said “GHI” about how they relate, then all else is a “hope” that the conclusions made were the Truth, and a “hope” that the conclusions made were from the Holy Spirit.

For me, simplicity of God means that He cannot be contradictory things. He cannot be immanent and transcendent at the same time in His essence.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that God’s transcendence is ontological. His immanence is epistemological.

From my understanding, this is also Catholic teaching. The phrases Deus a Se and Deus pro nobis were a seed to this Truth. Deus a Se being His ontological transcendence and Essence, Deus pro nobis, being His immanent Names and Attributes.

For me, this makes sense, this is simplicity and this reflects the observable reality around us in the universe and fits very nicely with logic ad rational thinking and lacks confusion, which are necessities to give us a glimpse into God and His ways

.

We profess and believe that we truly receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ when we receive the Holy Eucharist. It is the whole Christ, including the divine and human natures (this is the rational human soul with resurrected Body and Blood of Christ):

• Body, Blood, Soul
• Divinity

Excerpt from Catechism 466: … Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.

 

[po18guy]

If not already mentioned, it is because Christ is the only human ever - there is no other - who was pre-announced to the world. He fulfilled numerous prophecies, and no other has ever done this. There are many witnesses whose testimony agrees, to every aspect of His being. Reading only chapter 1 of “Life of Christ” by Bishop Fulton Sheen should clarify this point far better than I ever could. The boldness and claims of Christianity are absolutely unprecedented and it is either true, or an immense, world-wide sham has been perpetrated out in the open for 2,000 years.