Protestants, is Jesus present at your worship services?

[Elizabeth502]

IV. How Is the Son of God Man?

470
Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed,"97 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:98

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.99
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471
Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472
This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man,"101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave."103

473
But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104\ "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474
By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109
Christ’s human will

475
Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111
Christ’s true body

476
Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ’s body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113

477
At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ’s body express the divine person of God’s Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer "who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted."115
The heart of the Incarnate Word

478
Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony, and his Passion and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God . . . loved me and gave himself for me."116 He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation,117 “is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that . . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings” without exception.118

{Same link as above post}

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hypostatic Union
A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures

————

• Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
  Hypostatic Union, a theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis (upostasis) means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, “Mund.”, IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul’s Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3: iii, 14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicaea (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian upostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hypostatic_Union

Also see:
newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

 

[ellipsis2]

Correct. And certainly anyone raised Catholic should know these theological truths instinctively without question. Jesus does not need Eucharist to actualize Himself within the sons and daughters of His Father (i.e., everyone). Eucharist is a separate question from that: it is a particular variant of Jesus’ presence.

I’m wondering if you are an official Catholic apologist, since you seem to no patience for anyone asking questions and assume they are lax catholics if that is how they self identify.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m wondering if you are an official Catholic apologist, since you seem to no patience for anyone asking questions and assume they are lax catholics if that is how they self identify.

Read over my more recent posts. I am not “impatient” with lack of knowledge, nor did anywhere I “assume they are lax Catholics.” The identifier of the poster in question does not indicate how recently he has returned to the Church. That, combined with his questions about some extremely basic essentials about Catholic dogma, made me wonder how recent his catechesis was. The basic dogma of the Incarnation is not high-level apologetics requiring a theology degree. There are plenty of other posters who admit to having had insufficient catechesis and pose questions about some essentials as well. That’s not surprising. Catechesis in the last 30 years in the Church has been often abominable, which the bishops, and definitely the Pope, have recently expressed dismay about.

I encouraged him to combine his previous instruction in the faith with his assumed intelligence. That’s not “impatience.” It’s directing him to apply current intelligence to past instruction.

The only thing at all I was “impatient” about was his frequent repetition of questions to which answers had already been provided.

Separately, he specifically requested citations. Therefore, I provided those. It’s unfortunate if you disapprove of that.

 

[ellipsis2]

Read over my more recent posts. I am not “impatient” with lack of knowledge, nor did anywhere I “assume they are lax Catholics.” The identifier of the poster in question does not indicate how recently he has returned to the Church. That, combined with his questions about some extremely basic essentials about Catholic dogma, made me wonder how recent his catechesis was. The basic dogma of the Incarnation is not high-level apologetics requiring a theology degree. There are plenty of other posters who admit to having had insufficient catechesis and pose questions about some essentials as well. That’s not surprising. Catechesis in the last 30 years in the Church has been often abominable, which the bishops, and definitely the Pope, have recently expressed dismay about.

I encouraged him to combine his previous instruction in the faith with his assumed intelligence. That’s not “impatience.” It’s directing him to apply current intelligence to past instruction.

The only thing at all I was “impatient” about was his frequent repetition of questions to which answers had already been provided.

Are you under the impression that posters cling to your every word and post? That may not be the case, so repetition may be needed.

 

[snarflemike]

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.shtml

Which heresy do you think I am flirting with in asking if Jesus can be apart from his body?

 

[snarflemike]

Read over my more recent posts. I am not “impatient” with lack of knowledge, nor did anywhere I “assume they are lax Catholics.” The identifier of the poster in question does not indicate how recently he has returned to the Church.

Ten years ago.

That, combined with his questions about some extremely basic essentials about Catholic dogma, made me wonder how recent his catechesis was. The basic dogma of the Incarnation is not high-level apologetics requiring a theology degree.

What aspect of the Incarnation do you think I don’t understand?

I can assure you that in 10 years of fairly serious study of Catholic doctrine, I have never seen my question addressed. So to brush it off as “extremely basic” simply doesn’t apply in my universe. As I asked earlier, what heresy do you think I’m flirting with?