Person vs Nature (contd.)

[afthomercy]

Christ was a true man united to the true Son of God but through the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, he was one Person, therefore one substance. It is a Mystery. You have one thing, one being, one substance - but in a true human nature and a true Divine nature.

Adam and Eve and Satan never enjoied the Beatific Vision.

Linus2nd

You say “true man”, but strip it of its meaning by putting the Deity in the driver’s seat.

I can’t give you a bible quote for Adam having the Beatific Vision, but the Dei Verbum para 3 (echoed by CCC para 54) says:
“God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents.” Emphasis added. These words convey strong hint of face-to-face communion.

I can give you a biblical quote for angels enjoying Beatific Vision:
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You say “true man”, but strip it of its meaning by putting the Deity in the driver’s seat.

Isn’t that the point of the Incarnation?

I can’t give you a bible quote for Adam having the Beatific Vision, but the Dei Verbum para 3 (echoed by CCC para 54) says:
"God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19

This refers to the ability of man to learn that God exists and what his nature is by observing his creation. There is no implication of this being the Beatific Vision. It refers to the normal knowledge we can have through the normal use of our reasoning powers.

20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents." Emphasis added. These words convey strong hint of face-to-face communion.

No, this was a time of testing for Adam and Eve, They were not in heaven but on earth. And they did not see God " face to face. " He may have spoken to them just as he did to Moses and Abraham and Elijah but this is not the Beatific Vision. Not even the Blessed Mother enjoyed the Beatific Vision.

I can give you a biblical quote for angels enjoying Beatific Vision:
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

The Angels did not enjoy the Beatific Vision at the beginning. First they underwent a Test. Satan and the fallen Angels failed the test. The good Angels passed the test. But they did not enjoy the Beatific Vision before that. You quote refers to the condition of the good Angels after the test.

Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

Linus,
a) Your clarifications on the Beatific Vision of Adam and the angels are unexceptionable, thank you.
b) ‘Invulnerability to sin’ is proper to Deity and ‘Grace to resist sin’ is proper to humans. If the humanised Deity retained the former attribute, then I’d say that the “emptying” referred to in Phillipians 2:7 was only partial…?

 

[afthomercy]

contd…
Linus,
c) Your assertion that the Blessed Mother didn’t have the Beatific Vision set me thinking. Was the incarnate Deity born with the Beatific Vision or was it granted to him as His maturity increased? I think the latter was the case, because the former would again clash with the concept of “emptied himself”.
d) Now if the latter was the case, is there any reason why the Blessed Mother shouldn’t have been granted it, since she was favoured in so many things, and especially as having the Beatific Vision kind of insulates you against temptation, and since we believe that she was and remained immaculate?
e) I think there are different degrees of Beatific Vision, the highest being that of the 3-persons themselves, then the Blessed Mother in Heaven, then the angels and then the saints. Even among the saints, there must be different degrees of Beatific Vision, according to merit.
If there can be degrees, then the angels and our first parents must have enjoyed a lower degree of it (till their respective Falls). Moses, Elijah and other OT prophets also must have been granted a temporary and diluted form of it. Also at the Transfiguration, the 3-apostles definitely were granted a momentary and high degree glimpse of it. By the same logic, the Blessed Mother also must have enjoyed some degree of the Beatific Vision whilst on earth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
a) Your clarifications on the Beatific Vision of Adam and the angels are unexceptionable, thank you.
b) ‘Invulnerability to sin’ is proper to Deity and ‘Grace to resist sin’ is proper to humans. If the humanised Deity retained the former attribute, then I’d say that the “emptying” referred to in Phillipians 2:7 was only partial…?

This passage refers to his appearance in human form, whereby he witheld any apparent and visible signs of his Divinity. It does not infer any human, moral weakness. He was not subject to any moral weakness even in his humanity.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

contd…
Linus,
c) Your assertion that the Blessed Mother didn’t have the Beatific Vision set me thinking. Was the incarnate Deity born with the Beatific Vision or was it granted to him as His maturity increased? I think the latter was the case, because the former would again clash with the concept of “emptied himself”

He enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the moment of his conception.
.

d) Now if the latter was the case, is there any reason why the Blessed Mother shouldn’t have been granted it, since she was favoured in so many things, and especially as having the Beatific Vision kind of insulates you against temptation, and since we believe that she was and remained immaculate?

There is no teaching or tradition of the Church that suggests she enjoyed the Beatific Vision during her earthly life. Although we can certainly believe that she was confirmed in grace, And certainly that would not exclude the possibility of genuine temptations. But at least we can certainly believe that she was not subject to the groser forms of human weakness.

Certainly each person in heaven will possess the Beatific Vision with different degrees of clarity. But Jesus was the only person who ever lived who possessed the Beatific Vision while yet living.

If there can be degrees, then the angels and our first parents must have enjoyed a lower degree of it (till their respective Falls). Moses, Elijah and other OT prophets also must have been granted a temporary and diluted form of it. Also at the Transfiguration, the 3-apostles definitely were granted a momentary and high degree glimpse of it. By the same logic, the Blessed Mother also must have enjoyed some degree of the Beatific Vision whilst on earth.

No, there is no tradition of such belief. Therefore we cannot hold it. And it is not good to voice such opinions aloud, that is imprudent because it might tempt others to do the same. We are not more wise than the Church. The Church has never even hinted that such things might be true.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[levinas12]

… Person is a species of the genus " being. "

There is no genus “being” - and “person” is not a species.

Genus and species refer to the “form” which is communicable.

“Person” is responsible for the peculiar individuality of the rational substance (“peculiar” because the individuality here transcends both prime matter and the accidents).

As such, “person”, unlike “form”, is incommunicable, e.g., there is no class of John Does (qua John Doe) - no species of “John Doe” - but “John Doe” does share in a form, “human eidos”, along with all the other human beings.

If “person” is a species, then we share in an “eidos” common to angels and God. But this isn’t the case.

Person is neither matter or form - a “who” and not a “what”.

Proper names of human beings are mysterious. You can’t say “what” they add to a human being - because the “who” cannot be defined, categorized, etc. - the “who” is a singularity outside all classes of entities.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no genus “being” - and “person” is not a species.

Genus and species refer to the “form” which is communicable.

“Person” is responsible for the peculiar individuality of the rational substance (“peculiar” because the individuality here transcends both prime matter and the accidents).

As such, “person”, unlike “form”, is incommunicable, e.g., there is no class of John Does (qua John Doe) - no species of “John Doe” - but “John Doe” does share in a form, “human eidos”, along with all the other human beings.

If “person” is a species, then we share in an “eidos” common to angels and God. But this isn’t the case.

Person is neither matter or form - a “who” and not a “what”.

Proper names of human beings are mysterious. You can’t say “what” they add to a human being - because the “who” cannot be defined, categorized, etc. - the “who” is a singularity outside all classes of entities.

O.K., But it makes a point, that being a person is a particular human being.

Pax
Linus2nd.

 

[afthomercy]

This passage refers to his appearance in human form, whereby he witheld any apparent and visible signs of his Divinity. It does not infer any human, moral weakness. He was not subject to any moral weakness even in his humanity.

Pax
Linus2nd

You have not clarified your take on the “emptying” aspect.

Lets look at the passage in its entirety (which by a happy coincidence was also today’s 1st Reading here in Mumbai)
Phil 2 (NASB)
“5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

My take on the above is that He came truly empty handed, i.e. He left his Divinity squarely in Heaven and embraced the human nature with full gusto. The Beatific Vision that He possessed and all the God-like qualities that He displayed came about because of an extra-ordinary outpouring of grace on his human nature and not because He was the Deity incarnate. The human nature is designed to rise to the levels of divinity under the influence of grace. This gets support from Mt. 5:48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

No, there is no tradition of such belief. Therefore we cannot hold it. And it is not good to voice such opinions aloud, that is imprudent because it might tempt others to do the same. We are not more wise than the Church. The Church has never even hinted that such things might be true.

A lot of things the Church has said were said in response to what others conjectured and has this has justly served to codify the true beliefs. So is there anything wrong in fresh conjecturing as long as it does not clash with established beliefs? As there is no tradition of a belief in the Blessed Mother possessing Beatific Vision whilst on earth, isn’t it open to reflection by the Church? And isn’t this blog a proper forum to discuss/clarify/correct each others beliefs as fellow Christians?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You have not clarified your take on the “emptying” aspect.

Lets look at the passage in its entirety (which by a happy coincidence was also today’s 1st Reading here in Mumbai)
Phil 2 (NASB)
“5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

My take on the above is that He came truly empty handed, i.e. He left his Divinity squarely in Heaven and embraced the human nature with full gusto. The Beatific Vision that He possessed and all the God-like qualities that He displayed came about because of an extra-ordinary outpouring of grace on his human nature and not because He was the Deity incarnate. The human nature is designed to rise to the levels of divinity under the influence of grace. This gets support from Mt. 5:48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

He did not leave his Divinity behind. In fact his humanity was perfected by being united to his Divinity. Since his humanity enjoyed the Beatific Vision he could not sin. " Emptying himself " means only that he wanted to appear as a mere man and experience all they did to make his own sacrifice all the more perfect. He could experience fear,heat, cold, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow like all men. And Satan could try to tempt him, but from his part what could temptation mean since he could not, even in theory, sin. I do not see how he could actually be tempted to sin. I have never seen an explanation of how this could happen.

[QIOTE]A lot of things the Church has said were said in response to what others conjectured and has this has justly served to codify the true beliefs. So is there anything wrong in fresh conjecturing as long as it does not clash with established beliefs? As there is no tradition of a belief in the Blessed Mother possessing Beatific Vision whilst on earth, isn’t it open to reflection by the Church? And isn’t this blog a proper forum to discuss/clarify/correct each others beliefs as fellow Christians?

It starts wild speculations and rumors and this is not good. If you want to hold it in your heart privately I guess it would be O.K., but you shouldn’t put these ideas into other people’s hearts.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

He did not leave his Divinity behind. In fact his humanity was perfected by being united to his Divinity. Since his humanity enjoyed the Beatific Vision he could not sin. " Emptying himself " means only that he wanted to appear as a mere man and experience all they did to make his own sacrifice all the more perfect. He could experience fear,heat, cold, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow like all men. And Satan could try to tempt him, but from his part what could temptation mean since he could not, even in theory, sin. I do not see how he could actually be tempted to sin. I have never seen an explanation of how this could happen.

I looked up several English versions of this verse [Phil 2:7] (courtesy Bible Gateway) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%202:7, but could not get the sense that you tend to give here. To become “empty”, one has to jettison that all one has. Since his sole single possession was his Divine nature, the inescapable conclusion is that He jettisoned it/ left it behind for his human odyssey.

Also look at the words “[He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” The only thing that gave him equality with God was his divine nature; so if He clung to it, doesn’t it contradict the words of scripture?

If he brought the Divine invulnerability to temptation along with him, it puts the whole Temptation scene into serious doubt as I have highlighted several times earlier. If on the other hand He allowed himself to be vulnerable to temptation but overcame it only through the normal grace to which every man can aspire, it becomes a perfect example for us to emulate.

Once again, the Beatific Vision became possible for him because of an outpouring of grace on his sinless humanity and not because He brought it along with him. Augustine says that we experience the Beatific Vision to the extent that we are like God, and we don’t experience it to the extent that we are unlike him. The earthly man Jesus came as close in likeness to God as it is ever possible for humans to do. In such a situation Beatific Vision flows automatically. (Aside: This is why it surprises me that the Church has not so far reflected on the Beatific Vision of the Blessed Mother whilst she was on earth. We have reflected on and come to definitive conclusions as to her immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, her bodily assumption and her heavenly coronation. How come we left her Beatific Vision out of our contemplations?)

**Oh how I love Phil 2:7 - it brings the OP into such sharp focus! If He succeeded in coming out of his nature, the OP begs itself - what’s in the Person that’s not in the nature and vice versa? **I request you to have a relook at the verse. Your explanation that his emptiness was only a put on doesn’t even do justice to the plain meaning of the words.

AFT says: A lot of things the Church has said were said in response to what others conjectured and has this has justly served to codify the true beliefs. So is there anything wrong in fresh conjecturing as long as it does not clash with established beliefs? As there is no tradition of a belief in the Blessed Mother possessing Beatific Vision whilst on earth, isn’t it open to reflection by the Church? And isn’t this blog a proper forum to discuss/clarify/correct each others beliefs as fellow Christians?

Linus answers: It starts wild speculations and rumors and this is not good. If you want to hold it in your heart privately I guess it would be O.K., but you shouldn’t put these ideas into other people’s hearts.

I wouldn’t like to carry it in my heart if it can’t stand scrutiny of my fellow believers/the Church, and that’s why I’m discussing it on this forum. I trust that the visitors to this thread will have the maturity to understand that this is only an individual’s personal probing and not the Church’s position. Col 3:16 sets the mood: “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I looked up several English versions of this verse [Phil 2:7] (courtesy Bible Gateway) biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%202:7, but could not get the sense that you tend to give here. To become “empty”, one has to jettison that all one has. Since his sole single possession was his Divine nature, the inescapable conclusion is that He jettisoned it/ left it behind for his human odyssey.

Also look at the words “[He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” The only thing that gave him equality with God was his divine nature; so if He clung to it, doesn’t it contradict the words of scripture?

If he brought the Divine invulnerability to temptation along with him, it puts the whole Temptation scene into serious doubt as I have highlighted several times earlier. If on the other hand He allowed himself to be vulnerable to temptation but overcame it only through the normal grace to which every man can aspire, it becomes a perfect example for us to emulate.

Once again, the Beatific Vision became possible for him because of an outpouring of grace on his sinless humanity and not because He brought it along with him. Augustine says that we experience the Beatific Vision to the extent that we are like God, and we don’t experience it to the extent that we are unlike him. The earthly man Jesus came as close in likeness to God as it is ever possible for humans to do. In such a situation Beatific Vision flows automatically. (Aside: This is why it surprises me that the Church has not so far reflected on the Beatific Vision of the Blessed Mother whilst she was on earth. We have reflected on and come to definitive conclusions as to her immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, her bodily assumption and her heavenly coronation. How come we left her Beatific Vision out of our contemplations?)

**Oh how I love Phil 2:7 - it brings the OP into such sharp focus! If He succeeded in coming out of his nature, the OP begs itself - what’s in the Person that’s not in the nature and vice versa? **I request you to have a relook at the verse. Your explanation that his emptiness was only a put on doesn’t even do justice to the plain meaning of the words.

I wouldn’t like to carry it in my heart if it can’t stand scrutiny of my fellow believers/the Church, and that’s why I’m discussing it on this forum. I trust that the visitors to this thread will have the maturity to understand that this is only an individual’s personal probing and not the Church’s position. Col 3:16 sets the mood: “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Pax
Linus2nd

OK, have it your way. Starting once again from common ground, in the Trinity we have 1-Being consisting of 3-Persons, who are distinct from each other ONLY in their origin and manner of procession. It should be considered safe to presume that they have some internal means of recognising and differentiating each other, otherwise there would be perpetual confusion amongst themselves as to who is who. This undoubtedly makes a huge assumption regarding the internal workings of the Godhead and I acknowledge that I could be way off the mark. The validity of the above assumption would affect the rest of this article.

These 3-Persons, either individually or collectively (presumably collectively since we have the words “come let us make…”), go on to create other immortal rational natures, viz. the angels and the humans. Now, as the 3-Persons have a special interest in these creations, they stamp each of them with an unique recognition criterion or identifier, designed on the lines of their own inter-se recognition criterion. (They would not do so in the case of animals, plants and non-living beings because they have no special interest in those.) Once stamped with that unique (and indelible) identifier, those natures become persons. I’d like to call this unique identifier “the personhood” of that individual.

At the time of the Incarnation, the question arose as to what identifier they should stamp that human nature with. If they went ahead and applied a new identifier to it, it would have resulted in the creation of a new person, which was clearly a no-go. So what did they do? They stamped that nature with the same identifier that they internally use for the Second Person, and that, my dear sir, is the Hypostatic Union!

The above interpretation allows for the “emptying” of Phil 2:7. The Second Person, in his human nature, has no vestiges of the Divine Nature. He holds the two natures distinctly and without overlap. The two natures are united in one Personhood, thereby making them one Person. Now you and I do not know what unique identifier God uses for us, because that is something hidden in the mind of God. So how did Jesus in his human intellect know about his being the Son of God? Well, it was infused knowledge to him that the 3-Persons recognised him in the same way as they recognised the Second Person. This was enough for him to claim the position of Son/Second Person.

 

[afthomercy]

The above interpretation allows for the “emptying” of Phil 2:7. The Second Person, in his human nature, has no vestiges of the Divine Nature. He holds the two natures distinctly and without overlap. The two natures are united in one Personhood, thereby making them one Person. Now you and I do not know what unique identifier God uses for us, because that is something hidden in the mind of God. So how did Jesus in his human intellect know about his being the Son of God? Well, it was infused knowledge to him that the 3-Persons recognised him in the same way as they recognised the Second Person. This was enough for him to claim the position of Son/Second Person.

I’d like to restate the above para of my last post as under (in order to sharpen it):
The above interpretation allows for the “emptying” of Phil 2:7. The two natures of the Hypostatic Union are distinct and independent of each other. Ordinary people like us do not know what unique identifier God uses for us, because that is something hidden in the mind of God. So how did the human nature of Jesus become aware of its Divine personhood? Well, it was infused knowledge to it that the 3-Persons recognised it in the same way as they recognised the Second Person. After that there was nothing to prevent that man from claiming (correctly) to be the Son/Second Person himself!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK, have it your way. Starting once again from common ground, in the Trinity we have 1-Being consisting of 3-Persons, who are distinct from each other ONLY in their origin and manner of procession. It should be considered safe to presume that they have some internal means of recognising and differentiating each other, otherwise there would be perpetual confusion amongst themselves as to who is who. This undoubtedly makes a huge assumption regarding the internal workings of the Godhead and I acknowledge that I could be way off the mark. The validity of the above assumption would affect the rest of this article.

I don’t think we can speculate on this with any accuracy.

These 3-Persons, either individually or collectively (presumably collectively since we have the words “come let us make…”), go on to create other immortal rational natures, viz. the angels and the humans. Now, as the 3-Persons have a special interest in these creations, they stamp each of them with an unique recognition criterion or identifier, designed on the lines of their own inter-se recognition criterion. (They would not do so in the case of animals, plants and non-living beings because they have no special interest in those.) Once stamped with that unique (and indelible) identifier, those natures become persons. I’d like to call this unique identifier “the personhood” of that individual.

Since each of us is a person, that could not be the " identifier. " I suggest, if there is an " identifier " that it is the name God gave each of us when he created us.

At the time of the Incarnation, the question arose as to what identifier they should stamp that human nature with. If they went ahead and applied a new identifier to it, it would have resulted in the creation of a new person, which was clearly a no-go. So what did they do? They stamped that nature with the same identifier that they internally use for the Second Person, and that, my dear sir, is the Hypostatic Union!

Sounds good to me.

The above interpretation allows for the “emptying” of Phil 2:7. The Second Person, in his human nature, has no vestiges of the Divine Nature. He holds the two natures distinctly and without overlap. The two natures are united in one Personhood, thereby making them one Person.

I still say that the " emptying " of himself was the assumption of a human nature whereby he would be like us in all things except sin - and his Divine Personhood.

now you and I do not know what unique identifier God uses for us, because that is something hidden in the mind of God.

O.K.

So how did Jesus in his human intellect know about his being the Son of God? Well, it was infused knowledge to him that the 3-Persons recognised him in the same way as they recognised the Second Person. This was enough for him to claim the position of Son/Second Person.

O.K.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’d like to restate the above para of my last post as under (in order to sharpen it):
The above interpretation allows for the “emptying” of Phil 2:7. The two natures of the Hypostatic Union are distinct and independent of each other. Ordinary people like us do not know what unique identifier God uses for us, because that is something hidden in the mind of God. So how did the human nature of Jesus become aware of its Divine personhood? Well, it was infused knowledge to it that the 3-Persons recognised it in the same way as they recognised the Second Person. After that there was nothing to prevent that man from claiming (correctly) to be the Son/Second Person himself!

I don’t see anything wrong with this except we are doing a lot of speculating. Yes the human nature of Christ had infused knowledge from the Divinity. But I don’t think God needed any special way of recognizing the Son he created.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

Linus,
Frankly, I’m so shocked to find you agreeing with me on most things (post #133 and 134), that I wonder whether you have understood me correctly. I was half afraid you’d pluck out something from the CCC or the Summa and throw it at me!

The most important implication of my post #131 is that the personhood of a being does not reside in its nature per se, but in the mind of God. The whole class of beings can be divided into two groups, viz. those that are persons and those that are not. What makes a being a person is that the 3-Persons have a recognition criterion for it similar to what they have for each other. Poor Boethius and Co. completely missed the point when they looked inside the being to place a finger on its personhood. It never occurred to them that its personhood could stand outside its nature and shall be found only in the mind of God!

I agree that God doesn’t follow a process inside his mind. For him everything occurs instantaneously, but for our human understanding we have to assume that He follows a process, otherwise it is not possible to discuss anything in regard to it.

Theoretically, it is possible for God to create beings that are human non-persons. He’d do that by creating them as regular humans with soul and body, but omitting to put a unique recognition criterion for each of them in his mind. So if these rational animals came before him again, He would not feel any special emotion towards them. They would be no more special to him than all the other animals and plants and planets and stars that He created.

Coming back to the Hypostatic Union, if I were God, how would I keep the two natures of the Incarnation completely separate and fully functional in themselves, yet united in one personhood? The answer would be to assign the same identifier to the created nature as is already assigned to the Second Person in my mind (the Godhead). This would ensure that whenever I looked at the man Jesus, I would see only the Second Person of the Trinity!

Now look at para 470 of the CCC and tell me if you find me contradicting anything written there:
*470 Because human nature was assumed, not absorbed,in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”.

The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity: The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.*

I hope you will agree that the CCC and I are in consonance, although the manner of expressing it differs.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
Frankly, I’m so shocked to find you agreeing with me on most things (post #133 and 134), that I wonder whether you have understood me correctly. I was half afraid you’d pluck out something from the CCC or the Summa and throw it at me!

The most important implication of my post #131 is that the personhood of a being does not reside in its nature per se, but in the mind of God.

 

[afthomercy]

Linus,
This is a U-turn from your previous 2-posts and I’m glad that I prodded you with my last post, otherwise I would have come away with the impression that we are in significant agreement.

I agree with you that a person is an individually existing human nature or an individually existing Angel, or God. Just because that’s the way it is presently, it doesn’t mean that we can’t have other natures as persons. My limited point is that natures who are persons have a special remembrance in the mind of God that natures who are non-persons don’t. This special and unique remembrance that sets these natures apart from other natures constitutes their personhood. It is nothing in the nature of a being that constitutes its personhood, but the way in which God remembers that nature that constitutes its personhood. If God chooses to remember a stone in the same way that He remembers me, then that stone would be a person. Conversely, if God chooses to remember me in the same way that He remembers a stone, then I would be a non-person. This is what I mean by saying that my personhood or non-personhood resides in God’s mind. My basic nature will continue unaffected by it.

I don’t know how you say that God’s knowledge of us does not reside in his mind but in us. Makes no sense to me.

You do not want to consider a scenario of human beings who are non-persons. I would like to remind you that very recently the Pope himself has said that the Big Bang theory is not incompatible with our faith. This admits of the possibility that Adam and Eve had thousands of human ancestors. This would necessarily imply that none of those thousands of those ancestors sinned, because we believe that sin entered the world through Adam only. That’s a bit wee hard to digest, no? Just think of it: Satan goes up to each one of them down the generations and all of them rebuff him, till he comes to Adam!

The only way to admit of human ancestry for Adam and Eve and yet make A&E as the first humans with culpable souls would be to admit of the possibility that those ancestors (if any) would have been non-person humans, i.e. merely very intelligent animals.

If God needs no identifier, how does He distinguish you from me? An identifier is implicit in the concept of individuality. How do the 3-Persons distinguish themselves from each other although possessing the one intellect? Once again an identifier is implicit.

You state that nothing in my theory agrees with Church teaching on Incarnation. While it admittedly uses different terminology, I’d like to know what it contradicts. Because if it doesn’t contradict, then maybe it is a different yet valid way of restating it?

I can see why this discussion is disturbing you. Its because it is pushing you out of your comfort zone and forcing you to think out-of-the-box. I’d love it if you return to the discussion with meaty arguments. If not, I’ll be thankful for the brief yet lively interaction we have had!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
This is a U-turn from your previous 2-posts and I’m glad that I prodded you with my last post, otherwise I would have come away with the impression that we are in significant agreement.

I agree with you that a person is an individually existing human nature or an individually existing Angel, or God. Just because that’s the way it is presently, it doesn’t mean that we can’t have other natures as persons. My limited point is that natures who are persons have a special remembrance in the mind of God that natures who are non-persons don’t. This special and unique remembrance that sets these natures apart from other natures constitutes their personhood. It is nothing in the nature of a being that constitutes its personhood, but the way in which God remembers that nature that constitutes its personhood. If God chooses to remember a stone in the same way that He remembers me, then that stone would be a person. Conversely, if God chooses to remember me in the same way that He remembers a stone, then I would be a non-person. This is what I mean by saying that my personhood or non-personhood resides in God’s mind. My basic nature will continue unaffected by it.

I don’t know how you say that God’s knowledge of us does not reside in his mind but in us. Makes no sense to me.

You do not want to consider a scenario of human beings who are non-persons. I would like to remind you that very recently the Pope himself has said that the Big Bang theory is not incompatible with our faith. This admits of the possibility that Adam and Eve had thousands of human ancestors. This would necessarily imply that none of those thousands of those ancestors sinned, because we believe that sin entered the world through Adam only. That’s a bit wee hard to digest, no? Just think of it: Satan goes up to each one of them down the generations and all of them rebuff him, till he comes to Adam!

The only way to admit of human ancestry for Adam and Eve and yet make A&E as the first humans with culpable souls would be to admit of the possibility that those ancestors (if any) would have been non-person humans, i.e. merely very intelligent animals.

If God needs no identifier, how does He distinguish you from me? An identifier is implicit in the concept of individuality. How do the 3-Persons distinguish themselves from each other although possessing the one intellect? Once again an identifier is implicit.

You state that nothing in my theory agrees with Church teaching on Incarnation. While it admittedly uses different terminology, I’d like to know what it contradicts. Because if it doesn’t contradict, then maybe it is a different yet valid way of restating it?

I can see why this discussion is disturbing you. Its because it is pushing you out of your comfort zone and forcing you to think out-of-the-box. I’d love it if you return to the discussion with meaty arguments. If not, I’ll be thankful for the brief yet lively interaction we have had!

I don’t want to be rude but I am " gassed " on all this speculation. I do not agree with you on major points since I regard them as contrary to faith. My advice to you is to be guided strictly by the Catechism and stop speculating. You are not a theologian and neither am I, so there is no point to it and I can already see the dangers such specualtion has for you. So I am not going to respond on these issues any longer.

Pax
Linus2nd