Person vs Nature (contd.)

[afthomercy]

This thread seeks to continue a thread that got recently closed. The last page of the original thread can be found at this link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599943&page=14

Below is the OP statement:

When we say that the Second Person holds two natures, viz. one divine and one human, we are making a distinction between the person and his nature. Again, when we say that the 3-divine persons hold one undivided nature, we are making the same distinction. So the question is, what distinguishes the person from his nature, or, what is there in the “person” that is not there in the “nature” and vice versa?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This thread seeks to continue a thread that got recently closed. The last page of the original thread can be found at this link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599943&page=14

Below is the OP statement:

When we say that the Second Person holds two natures, viz. one divine and one human, we are making a distinction between the person and his nature. Again, when we say that the 3-divine persons hold one undivided nature, we are making the same distinction. So the question is, what distinguishes the person from his nature, or, what is there in the “person” that is not there in the “nature” and vice versa?

As a brief introduction Aristotle tells is that the intellect is all things. What he means is that we know the things outside the body through the senses, The intellect coordinats and collates this sense infomation into forms or natures which it recognizes as the abstracted forms or natures, true of many individuals in a given genus and species. As abstracted forms they are called universals, univeral because they are universally true of many actually existing things. Animal is true of many individuals existing in the genus of animal. Man however is true of many individual animals in the species of animal.

These forms, the genus and the species, at this point, are beings of the intellect, they have only a mental reality, a nature that exists only in the mind. But as they are instantiated in reality they exist in matter. As they exist in matter they form a composit of matter and form in a really existing thing or substance, a subsisting thing, That is what a substance is, it is a really existing thing.

But a really existing thing can be a composit or a simple existing thing which is a composit of form and the act of existence, or it can be a substance in which the form or nature is an act of existence. That is what God is, a form or nature which is an act of existence.

Man, as existing in the mind, is a universal. But as a nature which actually exists is called a person, A human person is an intellectual nature that actually exists, it is thisman or that man.

Jesus Christ is this man, this Person, which has two natures, one Divine and one human. When they exist in reality they are in a really existing Person we call God, the Second Person of the Trinity. But the Second Person, existing in the Trinity is a Divine nature. The Second Person, having the Divine nature of God, came to earth in the Incarnation and assumed to himself or attached to himself ( to his nature ) a human nature. He did not attact to himself an already existing human person. Mary gave birth to a Person, she did not give birth to twin persons but one person only, a Divine Person. The Second Person of the Trinity united himself to a human nature at the moment of conception, the very instant. He did not unite himself to a another person.

And in Jesus Christ it is the Divine Person that does all things because he is the only Person that exists. But this Person exists with two natures. And in this union of natures, the human nature is raised in dignity and excellence by being conjoined to the Divine, not as mixed or confused with it. It is a union of the imperfect with the perfect.

All for now. .

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[John_Martin]

As Linus says, the Person is the Who, the individual you know by name, and the nature is the What.
There is no relationship to a nature, there is no individual to relate to, but only a concept concerning essence and substance to think about, but not to talk to.
There is a relationship, and interaction, and union, with a Person, and that person is of some “quiddity”, some “whatness”, some nature.
If I have relationship with Jesus, it is with a Person, an individual, whose “whatness” happens to be Human, and whose “whatness” happens to be Divine. He has two other relationships with persons that I will mention. One person he knows as Mother, and the other as Father, each with different “whatnesses”. He doesn’t talk to “humanity” but to “Mother”. He doesn’t talk to “divinity”, he talks to “Father”.

 

[afthomercy]

And in Jesus Christ it is the Divine Person that does all things because he is the only Person that exists. But this Person exists with two natures. And in this union of natures, the human nature is raised in dignity and excellence by being conjoined to the Divine, not as mixed or confused with it. It is a union of the imperfect with the perfect.

All for now. .

Pax
Linus2nd

All said and done, was it theoretically possible for Jesus to sin in His human nature? Had the Man wanted to, could He have gone against the will of the Father? I think you would say that His Divine nature would have prevented such a thing from happening; but what does this do to the notion of His equality with us (at the human level)? If He was ‘wired’ never to sin, doesn’t it make a farce of the Temptation in the Desert?

 

[John_Martin]

All said and done, was it theoretically possible for the Jesus the human to sin? Had He wanted to, could He have gone against the will of the Father? I think you would say that His Divine nature would have prevented such a thing from happening; but what does this do to the notion of His equality with us (at the human level)? If He was ‘wired’ never to sin, doesn’t it make a farce of the Temptation in the Desert?

He was equal to us in that he willed to unite to what he loved as most important to him, and had all the same human soul as us.
And he did love, only one thing, his Father, and so he did all for union with him.

We can only will to unite to what we love. But we love other things than the Father.

 

[afthomercy]

He was equal to us in that he willed to unite to what he loved as most important to him, and had all the same human soul as us.
And he did love, only one thing, his Father, and so he did all for union with him.

We can only will to unite to what we love. But we love other things than the Father.

Sorry John, you’ll have to read the original thread at least from post#80, pg.6 onwards forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599943&page=6 to get into the flow of the discussion.
And btw, you haven’t addressed the thrust of my above post, which is whether it was hypothetically possible for Jesus to sin. We all know for a fact that He never sinned, but that’s besides the point, because the discussion has veered to the question of whether His divinity fail-proofed His humanity. If He was wired never to sin, then definitely He was above our level of humanity, and where does that leave the “true man” notion?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All said and done, was it theoretically possible for Jesus to sin in His human nature? Had the Man wanted to, could He have gone against the will of the Father? I think you would say that His Divine nature would have prevented such a thing from happening; but what does this do to the notion of His equality with us (at the human level)? If He was ‘wired’ never to sin, doesn’t it make a farce of the Temptation in the Desert?

He could not sin, he could not even want to sin, because from the moment of conception he enjoyed the Beatific Vision. And that makes even the desire to sin impossible, even for mere humans in heaven, who also enjoy the Beatific Vision. Besides, he was God, and God cannot sin. Remember his human nature was divinized by reason of its attachment to the Divine nature. Keep in mind that it is not the nature that acts but the Person.

He could be tempted to eat and drink and to sleep to abhoar pain, as examples of the frailties of human imperfection. These are not sins in themselves. But by reason of who he was he could not sin. God cannot sin. But satan might not have known he was Divine, and that these events were viewed as temptations only on the side of satan.

The sin satan was trying to get him to commit was to acknowledge satan as the means of obtaing these human needs and desires. To eat and drink and to rest and to " take charge " are not sinful in themselves. But the means to obtain these things might well be, for mere humans. So Christ reminded him, " thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God. " He was telling satan who he was and that he was wasting his time. Of course satan did not believe him - yet.

So it was not even hypothetically possible for Christ to sin.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As Linus says, the Person is the Who, the individual you know by name, and the nature is the What.
There is no relationship to a nature, there is no individual to relate to, but only a concept concerning essence and substance to think about, but not to talk to.
There is a relationship, and interaction, and union, with a Person, and that person is of some “quiddity”, some “whatness”, some nature.
If I have relationship with Jesus, it is with a Person, an individual, whose “whatness” happens to be Human, and whose “whatness” happens to be Divine. He has two other relationships with persons that I will mention. One person he knows as Mother, and the other as Father, each with different “whatnesses”. He doesn’t talk to “humanity” but to “Mother”. He doesn’t talk to “divinity”, he talks to “Father”.

Very good.

Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

AFT - Thanks so much for bringing us back together in fellowship. I felt we were making some good strides in terms of clarification and refinement. I will have to spend a bit of time to put together a post of both you and Linus in which you assert that the human nature alone can fully function independent of an incarnated deity. The post in which you assert - albeit with hesitation - the phenomenon of person. The post of Linus in which he back tracks from his original assertion of indepedence. Followed by the post in which I fall apart in utter despair at this turn of events … . This will be the key steps that I think were made with respect to my very significant interest in this subject - and the approach I am taking. Might be a day or so…

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

AFT - Thanks so much for bringing us back together in fellowship. I felt we were making some good strides in terms of clarification and refinement. I will have to spend a bit of time to put together a post of both you and Linus in which you assert that the human nature alone can fully function independent of an incarnated deity. The post in which you assert - albeit with hesitation - the phenomenon of person. The post of Linus in which he back tracks from his original assertion of indepedence. Followed by the post in which I fall apart in utter despair at this turn of events … . This will be the key steps that I think were made with respect to my very significant interest in this subject - and the approach I am taking. Might be a day or so…

Aner

Well Aner, we are not writing dissertations for which we will be held to account. I don’t think that I said that the human nature of Christ could function independently of the Divine Person. And if I did, I straightened that out. No it can never operate independently of the Divine Person, it can act only through the Divine Person and always in conjunction with the Divine nature to which it is attached. Though most of the time the Divine nature did seem to be in the back ground. That does not mean it was sambulant, it only means it could not be seen as obviously acting. And on this question I am open to correction by more competent people or by the Church. And I have not finished my reflections on this point and other similar ones because I have not heard these questions before.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Well Aner, we are not writing dissertations for which we will be held to account. I don’t think that I said that the human nature of Christ could function independently of the Divine Person. And if I did, I straightened that out. No it can never operate independently of the Divine Person, it can act only through the Divine Person and always in conjunction with the Divine nature to which it is attached. Though most of the time the Divine nature did seem to be in the back ground. That does not mean it was sambulant, it only means it could not be seen as obviously acting. And on this question I am open to correction by more competent people or by the Church. And I have not finished my reflections on this point and other similar ones because I have not heard these questions before.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus -

Thanks. I fully acknowledge that your current position denies the ability of the human nature to act completely independently - thus, assuming consciousness and will - of an incarnated deity - just like you and I, as genuine men, function.

I have a question re: this phraseology -

it [the human nature] can act only through the Divine Person

Would not it be more meaningful to phrase it - “only the divine person can act through it”. To phrase it in the manner you do creates an “Actor” - really, a Directory - thus consciousness and will would necessarily be present - and thus, the independent ability to act is only limited by need some kind of mechanism. Thus a parapalegic can be mobile - BUT only with a through a mechanical unit Somehow I don’t believe this would reflect the genuine elements that constitute nature rather than person in case of either concept.

Aner

 

[Aner]

Posted by Aner
Anyone who doubts that animals have “persons” simply needs to watch this…

youtube.com/watch?v=g7LQS84IL4U#t=92

Posted by davidv

Person is an ontalogical entity not an attribute that one has or doesn’t. Personhood comes with a being’s nature. A non-human animal’s nature does not include personhood.

Gents

I think DavidV provides us some choice material.

They may “have” persons", but they are not persons.

Hmmmm…just what is this supposed to mean?? Further, if an assertion is made that something is NOT, this would pre-suppose a clear undertanding of the character of the omission. I would appreciate DavidV telling us what fundamental that animals are not in contrast to us with respect to “personess”.

Person is an ontalogical entity not an attribute that one has or doesn’t. Personhood comes with a being’s nature. A non-human animal’s nature does not include personhood.

I would still like to know whether a “person” (without regard to nature) is ontological - or essential - within itself. ATF and I chatted about this briefly and he tended to consider that there was something essential that “is” personess.

Aner

 

[Aner]

Originally posted by Linus
Though I still maintain that Christs human acts were truly human. Also, Christ’s Divine nature always acted through man’s human nature, at least physically. Also, there were times when we can say that the Divine nature seemed to be at the fore. You seem not to understand the meaning of Person. It is always the Person who acts. That is the overriding factor . There is no living entity that is simply a nature, not even when speaking of God whose very essence is his nature. In God, outside the Incarnation, God and Essence and Nature and Existence are identical. Doesn’t that just blow your mind .

Originally Posted by Aner
Ok - now you have me really confused. Hedging, perhaps, but it really seems like outright contradictions.

So my question is simply whether the human nature - with human consciousness and human will - could and can fully function - just like you and I, as genuine man, do - without ANY regard to an incarnated deity in any respect. Originally you seemed to indicate that YES, the human nature could and did and does so independently act.

Now you seem to be stating that NO - the human nature can NOT act independent of the incarnated deity - specifically the incarnated divine person. This creates an entity then in fundamentally distinct from who and what you and I as genuine men are and what we can do.

Please help your poor servant out of this maze…

Originally posted by Linus
Aner
I tried to give you an honest answer. The Church teaches Dogmatically that all acts of Jesus Christ are thos ot the Second Person of the Trinity. That means Christ’s human nature cannot act solo, only through the Second Person. So I guess the answer has to be no, even though I tried to nuance it a bit …

OK - the above is as far as Linus and I got in clarifying his perspective. Actually his first post provides some good material to chew on that I seemed to have overlooked earlier.

NOTE: Regarding Linus’ statement re: “honest” answer. I fully acknowledge that Linus has been total honest and civil (Thanks, L!). I also acknowledge that he recognizes that he will evolve in his thinking as he learns more - that is great! And we have seen that in the above (despite the fact that I consider it somewhat more of a “de-volving”…).

 

[Aner]

This is as far as I have gotten with the entire discussion - a somewhat edited previous post.

Before we begin in earnest, I would like to greatly appreciate AFT - both for his insight (esp. the OP) and much more so for his spirit - very pure. I am challenged!

Originally Posted by afthomercy
Aner, you have no way out of the maze till the OP is satisfactorily answered. Till then, best luck!

Originally Posted by Aner
Yes - I have been starting to lean in that direction (that there is no way out) as well. I had hoped that the course you and Linus were recently laying out for me was going to solidify and thought that I was going to crest that hill (“nature” is completely independently functional from incarnate deity and thus, we assume, including the phenomenon of consciousness and functionality of will), however, I was seemingly just waylaid into quicksand by Linus’ last post …

Not to give up hope however -

I had begun to go in that direction (answering the OP) with my introduction of the phenomenon of “consciousness” and function of “will” into the conversation and in particular into “nature” rather than “person”.

BTW - I am still working with your leaning (albeit hedging your bets) that “person” is phenomenal rather than purely ideational. Thus, I assume that when you deny the human person of Christ - you are deleting something from reality more than simply an idea - at least some good clean “person” energy.

Before we go too far into the detailed break-down of the elements that constitute the set of each of which appear to be simply ideational constructs, I would assert that if one is going to introduce a reality as expressed by a word into the conversation then one should damn well know specifically what the nature of the reality is that they are introducing. Otherwise such an introduction is pointless – indeed, even holding such an idea is pointless and essentially amounts to just a word that popped into your head – with no semantic content. Talk about a cloud without any rain… Reasonably, we should establish the beachhead of our fellowship on mutually agreed upon reality. Say, how about the Bible???

The Bible plainly teaches that

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

We note that Jesus is denoted not only specifically as a man and is done so as formally aligned and identified with all other men but done so in absolute and fundamental contrast to God Himself. The real question “What is a man?” is simply answered in this same text. You and I – and, as noted in the text, all of mankind - are men (unless you are a lot different than the rest of us - we are not an incarnated deity). Without question, we all know exactly what we are and that we and all others like us are and always have been this “manness” – not one variable more or one less.

Indeed, then, Jesus MUST have everything that we do in order to be a genuine man - otherwise He is not. Simple math. To strip Him of ANYTHING - of a single iota of our “manness” is make Him less than a genuine man – those with whom He is specifically and fully here and elsewhere (Heb2:11) identified. Such a stripping is, thus, to make Him someone other than the Lord and Master who bought us (egads – I don’t want to even glance in the direction of that fire…).

To make Jesus less than a man is to violate the clear teaching of scripture (which presumably your own teachers (the vatican) hold as authoritative). Are you willing to assert that Paul’s writing to Timothy here, Peter’s sermon in the book of Acts 2 and 20 other instances including Jesus own words in Jn8:40 are flat out wrong? That Paul, Peter and Jesus Himself are so confused and don’t know what they are talking about? Or that every one of the 20 or so texts are simply wrong and your teachers have been in error by their consideration of these texts as holy scripture….

Sincerely
In the Lord and Master who bought us,

Aner

 

[John_Martin]

John Martin;12442040:

He was equal to us in that he willed to unite to what he loved as most important to him, and had all the same human soul as us.
And he did love, only one thing, his Father, and so he did all for union with him.

We can only will to unite to what we love. But we love other things than the Father.

Sorry John, you’ll have to read the original thread at least from post#80, pg.6 onwards forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599943&page=6 to get into the flow of the discussion.
And btw, you haven’t addressed the thrust of my above post, which is whether it was hypothetically possible for Jesus to sin. We all know for a fact that He never sinned, but that’s besides the point, because the discussion has veered to the question of whether His divinity fail-proofed His humanity. If He was wired never to sin, then definitely He was above our level of humanity, and where does that leave the “true man” notion?

I believe I answered your question, whether it was theoretically possible for Jesus the man to sin.
There is one Person Jesus. Not two (one human, one divine). The will is not independent of the person, but is a power of the person. And the act of the will is union with what is loved, by the Person, not by a soul versus by a divinity as if there were two possible directions that might be in conflict. It is a person who loves, not a nature.
Therefore it is impossible for him to have sinned. His divinity (nature) did not foolproof his humanity (nature) but his single person.

 

[Aner]

I believe I answered your question, whether it was theoretically possible for Jesus the man to sin.
There is one Person Jesus. Not two (one human, one divine). The will is not independent of the person, but is a power of the person. And the act of the will is union with what is loved, by the Person, not by a soul versus by a divinity as if there were two possible directions that might be in conflict. It is a person who loves, not a nature.
Therefore it is impossible for him to have sinned. His divinity (nature) did not foolproof his humanity (nature) but his single person.

So what can we ask and/or derive from John’s theory

1. Did the “one Person” Jesus exist prior to the incarnation? I am assuming you will answer in the affirmative.
2. Do we have any extant evidences of a genuine man not having/being a human person?
3. Where does that make the “whatever” the person of Jesus joined with?
4. Can you clarify whether a person is tangible/substantial/essential in any manner even simply energy force? Or simply an ideational construct of some kind…

I note that at present the definition for person I have been provided has very little meaningful specifics. You have at least pushed the function of will into the Person set.

1. John, you indicated that the function/power of will resides in the person.

So when Jesus states “not MY will be done but THY will” to the Father - We have God having an contary will to Himself (as we recall from the OT God is essentially always referred to in a singular male pronoun…). What kind of theology is that?

OK - there is a start…

Best,

Aner

I avoided dealing with Jesus capability of sinning since that is not really germane to the OP.

 

[John_Martin]

Linus -

Thanks. I fully acknowledge that your current position denies the ability of the human nature to act completely independently - thus, assuming consciousness and will - of an incarnated deity - just like you and I, as genuine men, function.

I have a question re: this phraseology -

it [the human nature] can act only through the Divine Person

Would not it be more meaningful to phrase it - “only the divine person can act through it”. To phrase it in the manner you do creates an “Actor” - really, a Directory - thus consciousness and will would necessarily be present - and thus, the independent ability to act is only limited by need some kind of mechanism. Thus a parapalegic can be mobile - BUT only with a through a mechanical unit Somehow I don’t believe this would reflect the genuine elements that constitute nature rather than person in case of either concept.

Aner

A person “has” an intellect and will, from which consciousness works as a mechanism or instrument to interface with material reality. The actual will and intellect are not available for observation, but are spiritual, powers of the soul.

The human Jesus did not have the consciousness and will of an incarnated deity, but the intellect and will of a human, powers of the soul of a Person, and that one person also had the intellect and will of God, the essence and powers of divinity. One person. His divine will worked to unite him with what he loved, as did his human will, but there was one Person loving, (not a “human” person alongside a “divine” person).

 

[Aner]

A person “has” an intellect and will, from which consciousness works as a mechanism or instrument to interface with material reality. The actual will and intellect are not available for observation, but are spiritual, powers of the soul.

The human Jesus did not have the consciousness and will of an incarnated deity, but the intellect and will of a human, powers of the soul of a Person, and that one person also had the intellect and will of God, the essence and powers of divinity. One person. His divine will worked to unite him with what he loved, as did his human will, but there was one Person loving, (not a “human” person alongside a “divine” person).

OK, John, now you have me confused…

You just said that it is the “person” that has a will (blue above - and in your previous post). You implied that there is NO human person only a divine person. Then in your second paragraph you stated that the human nature DOES have a will (red)

BTW - if I understand the basic premise here - there is NO human Jesus - only a human nature to which Jesus, the divine person, affixed Himself to… Do I have that straight?

Last - you are throwing in “intellect” - can you clarify intellect vs consciousness for us?

Thanks,
Aner

 

[John_Martin]

So what can we ask and/or derive from John’s theory

1. Did the “one Person” Jesus exist prior to the incarnation? I am assuming you will answer in the affirmative.
2. Do we have any extant evidences of a genuine man not having/being a human person?
3. Where does that make the “whatever” the person of Jesus joined with?
4. Can you clarify whether a person is tangible/substantial/essential in any manner even simply energy force? Or simply an ideational construct of some kind…
   I note that at present the definition for person I have been provided has very little meaningful specifics. You have at least pushed the function of will into the Person set.
5. John, you indicated that the function/power of will resides in the person.
   So when Jesus states “not MY will be done but THY will” to the Father - We have God having an contary will to Himself (as we recall from the OT God is essentially always referred to in a singular male pronoun…). What kind of theology is that?
   OK - there is a start…
   Best,
   Aner
   I avoided dealing with Jesus capability of sinning since that is not really germane to the OP.

1. Yes, as you presumed - as we see both Mary and Joseph being told what to name the child.
2. As I wrote, "There is one Person Jesus. Not two (one human, one divine). " The phrase “human person” is a bit misleading, The definition of a “person” could be stated this way: “a person is an individual substance of a rational nature.” Since multiple “natures” are rational (divine, angelic, human), it is not a question of whether a man had not been a human person, but it is a question of whether an individual substance of a rational nature can be both human and divine, divine eternally, then assuming human nature (body/soul composite)
3. I am not sure of your meaning in this question.
4. Person is whatever is distinct substance of a rational nature, so we are speaking about this particular body, this face, this soul. All that localizes this person, Jesus. And when we speak about the Son of the Father, we are saying something like (though it is more difficult to verbalize) “this way God knows himself”. God knowing himself as Son of the Father also is known by us as this man Jesus.
5. What we have is a soul knowing the sensations of its body and loving being alive. That is the sensitive appetites. It was the same when Jesus was hungry in the desert after the tempter suggested he prove he was the Son of God by changing stones to bread to satisfy his hunger. The “will” is also termed the “intellective appetite”, as seen alongside the soul’s “sensitive appetites”. And Jesus sensed every bit of the “hunger to live”. The Father did not have this sensitive appetite, nor did Jesus in so far as his divine intellect and will. But he was / is a single person, not two. So, in a sense, God knew hunger (since Jesus knew it) and was about to know death. But, there was not contrary will in God. The words came out of the human mouth of Jesus, meaning his thoughts and his mouth as animated by his human soul. His mouth and conscious thoughts were not animated by his divine intellect. So they expressed both his sensitive desire from his sensitive appetite, and then his true love (to do the will of his Father) from his intellective appetite. Much like we might see a cookie and say aloud, “that looks so good” and then in the next line decline the cookie, “thank you for the offer, but I am on a diet”. The appetitive and then the intellective appetites.

 

[John_Martin]

OK, John, now you have me confused…

You just said that it is the “person” that has a will (blue above - and in your previous post). You implied that there is NO human person only a divine person. Then in your second paragraph you stated that the human nature DOES have a will (red)
BTW - if I understand the basic premise here - there is NO human Jesus - only a human nature to which Jesus, the divine person, affixed Himself to… Do I have that straight?
Last - you are throwing in “intellect” - can you clarify intellect vs consciousness for us?

Thanks,
Aner

There is only a Person. And that person is an individual with a divine rational nature and that person is an individual with a human rational nature, and that person is a single individual.

I was balking at your use of the term "consciousness’. In his “consciousness” he was not aware of “divinity”, but only moved by a human will and intellect to the thoughts that appeared in his consciousness. It is in his soul, his intellect, that this human knew both the divinity and humanity of himself. And only his soul moved / animated his human body, thoughts and movements.

Consciousness is a movement of the soul, of the will, to actualize what is known in the intellect, or to simulate possibilities of understanding and see if they are tenable. Everything about the body, including the activities of the brain, are simply instrumental for interface to what is “other” in the understanding of the intellect in the soul, whether to make the object of our understanding a reality outside our understanding, or to let some “other” know us, etc… Our understanding is not a material phenomenon, but a spiritual actuality.