Son of God, Son of Man. Modes of Presence?

[Linusthe2nd]

The quotations are additional points to what I frist wrote. The first is shown below on the teaching of St. Hilary an are exactly on topic, which you do not comment specifically on, from that post.

I understand your opinion. Don’t worry about a reply. But I do have something to post from the Doctor of the Church, St. Hilary of Poitiers taught much on the topic of physicality.

• The non-material soul physically resides in the body

Correct and so the Church teaches.
.

• Christ’s body, both incarnate and glorified states, is physical.

Correct and so the Church teaches.

• Humans are physically in the glorified body of Christ.

False and the Church does not teach this. And I don’t think for a minute that St. Hilary did either. Our existence is entirely separate from that of Christ’s, Only at the reception of Communion do we ever come into physical contact with Christ’s glorified body.

• Heaven can contain: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, angels, the faithful (in the glorified body of the Son)

False, the Church does not teach this. We will never exist in the glorified body of Christ. I doubt St. Hilary taught this. The faithful will be in heaven all right but their existence will be separate from that of Christ’s.
.

This is consistent with Stoic philosophy of mixing of materials in the same physical space.

I couldn’t care less for what the Stoic philosophers taught. And what has all this to do with my contentioin that the Second Person of the Trinity can have two different modes of existence simultaneously, a spiritual one as part of the Trinity governing the universe and a physical one in Jesus Christ, in the four instances I have repeated about half a dozen times now?

Linus2nd

 

[Vico]

Correct and so the Church teaches.
.

Correct and so the Church teaches.

False and the Church does not teach this. And I don’t think for a minute that St. Hilary did either. Our existence is entirely separate from that of Christ’s, Only at the reception of Communion do we ever come into physical contact with Christ’s glorified body.

False, the Church does not teach this. We will never exist in the glorified body of Christ. I doubt St. Hilary taught this. The faithful will be in heaven all right but their existence will be separate from that of Christ’s.
.

I couldn’t care less for what the Stoic philosophers taught. And what has all this to do with my contentioin that the Second Person of the Trinity can have two different modes of existence simultaneously, a spiritual one as part of the Trinity governing the universe and a physical one in Jesus Christ, in the four instances I have repeated about half a dozen times now?

Linus2nd

And you likely shouldn’t care what the Stoics taught, except to understand the context of the time in which St. Hilary of Pointiers wrote, and for that is it important and why I posted it.

Not sure what your statements “false and the Church does not teach this” are for. We are discussing non dogmatic statements here, just as your opinion is. I am posting of what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught. If something is not in opposition to a dogma and the Church does not teach it, it does not imply that it is false.

You can read what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught and that what I wrote is correct. A source you could read is *Tractatus super psalmos (365 A.D.)

• • Psalm 118:* Hilaire de Poitiers: Commentaire sur le psaume 118*. Introduction, critical text, translation and notes by Marc Milhau. 2 voll. Sources chrétiennes 344, 347 (Paris 1988).*

See particularly 51.17 (assuming into himself the nature of all humanity) and 58.6 (Christ carrying humans with him into heaven as a gift).

*Also:
A Model for the Christian Life: Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on the Psalms by Paul C. Burns

For what is taught by the Catholic Church, I posted earlier on the modes of presence and other topics.

 

[Vico]

And you likely shouldn’t care what the Stoics taught, except to understand the context of the time in which St. Hilary of Pointiers wrote, and for that is it important and why I posted it.

Not sure what your statements “false and the Church does not teach this” are for. We are discussing non dogmatic statements here, just as your opinion is. I am posting of what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught. If something is not in opposition to a dogma and the Church does not teach it, it does not imply that it is false.

You can read what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught and that what I wrote is correct. A source you could read is *Tractatus super psalmos (365 A.D.)

• • Psalm 118:* Hilaire de Poitiers: Commentaire sur le psaume 118**. Introduction, critical text, translation and notes by Marc Milhau. 2 voll. Sources chrétiennes 344, 347 (Paris 1988).

See particularly 51.17 (assuming into himself the nature of all humanity) and 58.6 (Christ carrying humans with him into heaven as a gift).

*Also:
A Model for the Christian Life: Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on the Psalms by Paul C. Burns

For what is taught by the Catholic Church, I posted earlier on the modes of presence and other topics.

Here is an exerpt on St.Hilary of Pointiers from St. Pope Benedict XVII - General Audience - 2007. In assuming our human nature, he has united himself with every man, “he has become the flesh of us all” (Tractatus super Psalmos 54, 9); “he took on himself the nature of all flesh and through it became true life, he has in himself the root of every vine shoot” (*ibid., * 51, 16). For this very reason the way to Christ is open to all - because he has drawn all into his being as a man -, even if personal conversion is always required: “Through the relationship with his flesh, access to Christ is open to all, on condition that they divest themselves of their former self (cf. Eph 4: 22), nailing it to the Cross (cf. Col 2: 14); provided we give up our former way of life and convert in order to be buried with him in his baptism, in view of life (cf. Col 1: 12; Rom 6: 4)” (*ibid., *91, 9).

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071010.html

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is an exerpt on St.Hilary of Pointiers from St. Pope Benedict XVII - General Audience - 2007. In assuming our human nature, he has united himself with every man, “he has become the flesh of us all” (Tractatus super Psalmos 54, 9); “he took on himself the nature of all flesh and through it became true life, he has in himself the root of every vine shoot” (*ibid., * 51, 16). For this very reason the way to Christ is open to all - because he has drawn all into his being as a man -, even if personal conversion is always required: “Through the relationship with his flesh, access to Christ is open to all, on condition that they divest themselves of their former self (cf. Eph 4: 22), nailing it to the Cross (cf. Col 2: 14); provided we give up our former way of life and convert in order to be buried with him in his baptism, in view of life (cf. Col 1: 12; Rom 6: 4)” (*ibid., *91, 9).

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071010.html

This is an allegorical, mystical representation of Christ’s action. None of this has anything to do with God’s actual governance of the universe.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And you likely shouldn’t care what the Stoics taught, except to understand the context of the time in which St. Hilary of Pointiers wrote, and for that is it important and why I posted it.

Not sure what your statements “false and the Church does not teach this” are for. We are discussing non dogmatic statements here, just as your opinion is. I am posting of what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught. If something is not in opposition to a dogma and the Church does not teach it, it does not imply that it is false.

You can read what St. Hilary of Poitiers taught and that what I wrote is correct. A source you could read is *Tractatus super psalmos (365 A.D.)

• • Psalm 118:* Hilaire de Poitiers: Commentaire sur le psaume 118**. Introduction, critical text, translation and notes by Marc Milhau. 2 voll. Sources chrétiennes 344, 347 (Paris 1988).

See particularly 51.17 (assuming into himself the nature of all humanity) and 58.6 (Christ carrying humans with him into heaven as a gift).

*Also:
A Model for the Christian Life: Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on the Psalms by Paul C. Burns

For what is taught by the Catholic Church, I posted earlier on the modes of presence and other topics.

Well, I’m not going to buy any books to find out what St.Hilary actually taught. And I have explained already how the Chruch’s teaching on the " modes of Christ’s presence are to be understood. My own thought is a logical extention of what the Church actually does teach.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

The Nicene Creed reads in part as follows:

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten” (Gk. monogenes) means of like or same substance (consubstantial). It also means of like “nature”, in the way a man is only able to beget a son or daughter of like nature–that is, a human being. Since God is divine, so is the Son. Since the Only Begotten Son of God was “born of the Father before all ages”, he always was. He was “begotten not made”, and this is outside of time.

There is of course more:

“For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed teaches that Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…”

The teaching is that Jesus Christ, as the historical Jesus on the earth, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This is the physical Jesus, conceived and born, in time, as a man. This is what both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed teach us. It would seem this is a different mode than that of the Only Begotten Son, born of the Father before all ages. It further follows that the physical and historical Jesus did not exist as a man prior to his worldly birth. This appears logical.

How then does this physical mode exist consubstantial with the divine nature of the Trinity? I only ask because I don’t know the answer. I also do not presume there isn’t one in Catholic teaching.

 

[Vico]

The Nicene Creed reads in part as follows:

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten” (Gk. monogenes) means of like or same substance (consubstantial). It also means of like “nature”, in the way a man is only able to beget a son or daughter of like nature–that is, a human being. Since God is divine, so is the Son. Since the Only Begotten Son of God was “born of the Father before all ages”, he always was. He was “begotten not made”, and this is outside of time.

There is of course more:

“For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed teaches that Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…”

The teaching is that Jesus Christ, as the historical Jesus on the earth, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This is the physical Jesus, conceived and born, in time, as a man. This is what both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed teach us. It would seem this is a different mode than that of the Only Begotten Son, born of the Father before all ages. It further follows that the physical and historical Jesus did not exist as a man prior to his worldly birth. This appears logical.

How then does this physical mode exist consubstantial with the divine nature of the Trinity? I only ask because I don’t know the answer. I also do not presume there isn’t one in Catholic teaching.

God actually became man, which is called the hypostatic union. The substantial union of human body and rational soul is not a a new person (or hypostasis) but is substantially effected in the existing Person of the Son of God. Body and rational soul are united into one substance and nature because the rational soul is by its own nature the form of the human body.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Nicene Creed reads in part as follows:

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten” (Gk. monogenes) means of like or same substance (consubstantial). It also means of like “nature”, in the way a man is only able to beget a son or daughter of like nature–that is, a human being. Since God is divine, so is the Son. Since the Only Begotten Son of God was “born of the Father before all ages”, he always was. He was “begotten not made”, and this is outside of time.

There is of course more:

“For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed teaches that Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…”

The teaching is that Jesus Christ, as the historical Jesus on the earth, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This is the physical Jesus, conceived and born, in time, as a man. This is what both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed teach us. It would seem this is a different mode than that of the Only Begotten Son, born of the Father before all ages. It further follows that the physical and historical Jesus did not exist as a man prior to his worldly birth. This appears logical.

How then does this physical mode exist consubstantial with the divine nature of the Trinity? I only ask because I don’t know the answer. I also do not presume there isn’t one in Catholic teaching.

Whether we speak of the Son of God in his spiritual mode of existence or of his physical mode of existence, he is always consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. However we speak of one Person of the Trinity, all three are always united as one substance, one nature, one God. But we attribute various acts as being properly said of one Person or the other. For example, it is the Son of God who became Incarnate, eventhough the other two persons are united with Christ as one substance, one nature, one God.

The question I have raised has never been addressed by the Church as far as I know. It is my contention that the physical mode of existence of the Son of God is limited to the four instances the Church has specifically defined. These are: 1. when Christ walked the earth for 33 years in his non-glorified body, 2. during the forty days after his Resurrection in his glorified body, 3. in the Eucharist in is glorified body, 4.and now at the right hand of the Father in heaven, in his glorified body.

I contend that the Son of God, in his spiritul mode of existence, without his glorified body, in union with the Trinity, created and governed the universe before the Incarnation and that the Trinity governs the universe now, after the Incarnation, just as before the Incarnation, with the Son of God in his spiritual mode of existence. Simultaneously, the Son of God, in his physical and glorified mode of existence now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven. In this mode of existence he governs the Church through the action of the Holy Spirit whom he has sent to govern the Church by grace and power. At the same time he becomes present, in his physical and glorified mode of existence. in the Eucharist by the power of God. .

Linus2nd

 

[Vico]

The Nicene Creed reads in part as follows:

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten” (Gk. monogenes) means of like or same substance (consubstantial). It also means of like “nature”, in the way a man is only able to beget a son or daughter of like nature–that is, a human being. Since God is divine, so is the Son. Since the Only Begotten Son of God was “born of the Father before all ages”, he always was. He was “begotten not made”, and this is outside of time.

There is of course more:

“For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed teaches that Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…”

The teaching is that Jesus Christ, as the historical Jesus on the earth, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and became man. This is the physical Jesus, conceived and born, in time, as a man. This is what both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed teach us. It would seem this is a different mode than that of the Only Begotten Son, born of the Father before all ages. It further follows that the physical and historical Jesus did not exist as a man prior to his worldly birth. This appears logical.

How then does this physical mode exist consubstantial with the divine nature of the Trinity? I only ask because I don’t know the answer. I also do not presume there isn’t one in Catholic teaching.

This may help, from INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION SELECT QUESTIONS ON CHRISTOLOGY (1979):

II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FIRST COUNCILS
B. The Council of Chalcedon6. What, then, does the Council of Chalcedon represent in the history of Christology? The dogmatic definition of Chalcedon does not pretend to offer an exhaustive answer to the question “How can God and man coexist in Christ?” It is precisely in this coexistence that the mystery of the Incarnation resides. No definition can exhaust the richness of this mystery by means of affirmative utterances. It behooves rather to proceed by way of negation and mark off a place from which we may not depart. Within this place of truth, the Council locates the “one” and the “other”, which seemingly exclude each other: transcendence and immanence, God and man. Both these aspects must be asserted unrestrictedly, while excluding anything that would smack of juxtaposition or admixture. In Christ, then, transcendence and immanence are perfectly conjoined.

In view of the cognitional categories and methods employed, one can take the view that the New Testament has undergone a measure of Hellenization. Yet, on the other hand, 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

 

[Thomas_White]

This may help, from INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION SELECT QUESTIONS ON CHRISTOLOGY (1979):

II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FIRST COUNCILS
B. The Council of Chalcedon6. What, then, does the Council of Chalcedon represent in the history of Christology? The dogmatic definition of Chalcedon does not pretend to offer an exhaustive answer to the question “How can God and man coexist in Christ?” It is precisely in this coexistence that the mystery of the Incarnation resides. No definition can exhaust the richness of this mystery by means of affirmative utterances. It behooves rather to proceed by way of negation and mark off a place from which we may not depart. Within this place of truth, the Council locates the “one” and the “other”, which seemingly exclude each other: transcendence and immanence, God and man. Both these aspects must be asserted unrestrictedly, while excluding anything that would smack of juxtaposition or admixture. In Christ, then, transcendence and immanence are perfectly conjoined.

In view of the cognitional categories and methods employed, one can take the view that the New Testament has undergone a measure of Hellenization. Yet, on the other hand, 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

Indeed. Let’s consider the phrases variously rendered as “one in Being with the Father” and “consubstantial with the Father” from the Nicene Creed.

“Homoousios” (one in being) is the word used in the Greek. “Ousios” (being) is etymologically related to the Greek verb “to be”. Latin lacks a present active participle of the verb “to be”, and the word is rendered as “consubstantialem” and the phrase as “consubstantialem Patri”. However, the Latin word “substantia”, unlike the Greek word “ousios”, connotes both matter and being. The difference in meaning concerns the very nature of both the Father and the Son.

The later ‘Confession of Chalcedon’, in the midst of great drama, settled the matter by decreeing that Christ is one Person with two natures, God and man. These are distinct natures with “the property of each nature preserved and concurring in one Person and one Substsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten Son…”

This is clear concerning the Son, who became incarnate as the historical Jesus and is both True God and True Man. What is not so clear is that the Son, “eternally begotten of the Father”, is of the same nature (Gk. monogenes) as the Father. However, this is likely a difficulty in translation, and the difficulty (to whatever extent it is a difficulty) endures to the present day. It is also likely the influence of Hellenization and the philosophy of Plato of which the quote above speaks. This is the notion of the opposing categories of Form and Matter and of Mind (Spirit) and Body (and, indeed, of Reason and Faith) that is at the very core of Platonic Dualism. This influence becomes central in the philosophy of Augustine as he attempts to present an Asiatic religion in a way that is understandable to the Western World. It is also perhaps the result of attempting to put into words what is beyond human understanding. We set this aside and turn to faith.

 

[Vico]

Indeed. Let’s consider the phrases variously rendered as “one in Being with the Father” and “consubstantial with the Father” from the Nicene Creed.

“Homoousios” (one in being) is the word used in the Greek. “Ousios” (being) is etymologically related to the Greek verb “to be”. Latin lacks a present active participle of the verb “to be”, and the word is rendered as “consubstantialem” and the phrase as “consubstantialem Patri”. However, the Latin word “substantia”, unlike the Greek word “ousios”, connotes both matter and being. The difference in meaning concerns the very nature of both the Father and the Son.

The later ‘Confession of Chalcedon’, in the midst of great drama, settled the matter by decreeing that Christ is one Person with two natures, God and man. These are distinct natures with “the property of each nature preserved and concurring in one Person and one Substsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten Son…”

This is clear concerning the Son, who became incarnate as the historical Jesus and is both True God and True Man. What is not so clear is that the Son, “eternally begotten of the Father”, is of the same nature (Gk. monogenes) as the Father. However, this is likely a difficulty in translation, and the difficulty (to whatever extent it is a difficulty) endures to the present day. It is also likely the influence of Hellenization and the philosophy of Plato of which the quote above speaks. This is the notion of the opposing categories of Form and Matter and of Mind (Spirit) and Body (and, indeed, of Reason and Faith) that is at the very core of Platonic Dualism. This influence becomes central in the philosophy of Augustine as he attempts to present an Asiatic religion in a way that is understandable to the Western World. It is also perhaps the result of attempting to put into words what is beyond human understanding. We set this aside and turn to faith.

They do address this:

IV. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY
D. Unity and Diversity of Soteriological Reflection in the Church
9. …The whole Tradition of the Church, grounded on Sacred Scripture, teaches that, if the deed of salvation is to be realized and explained, it must be linked to two mysteries. Jesus is truly God, and yet he is in total solidarity with us, for he has taken on man’s nature integrally.
…
V. CHRISTOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS IN NEED OF RENEWED EMPHASIS
B. The Lordship of Christ over the Cosmos
3.5. More often than not, the major objection against the cosmic aspect of Christ’s lordship in his Resurrection and Second Coming is bound up with a certain conception of what Christology is. For, if it is true that the humanity of Christ should never be confused with his divinity, it is equally true that we should not separate the one from the other. In fact, these two errors have one and the same result. Whether the humanity of Christ be absorbed into his divinity or isolated from it, in either case the acknowledgment of the cosmic lordship that the Son of God receives in his glorified humanity is slighted just as much. The divinity of the Word is alone credited with what now pertains (as the New Testament texts quoted above testify) to his humanity, insofar as it is the humanity of Jesus Christ who was made Lord, and as Lord was given “the name above every other name” (Phil 2:9).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

O.K. boys. Christiology is not the topic. Stick to the O.P. please, it is against the rules break with the O.P. Start a new thread if you want.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

O.K. boys. Christiology is not the topic. Stick to the O.P. please, it is against the rules break with the O.P. Start a new thread if you want.

Linus2nd

If the OP’s topic–“Son of God, Son of Man: Modes of Presence”–doesn’t concern Christology, I don’t know what would.

The question has been answered. Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, is the Son of God and of one nature, True God and True Man. These are not ever separate or distinct modes of presence.

The difficulty, as we have explained, is in reconciling the seemingly differing natures of the Father (being) and the Son (being and matter). I have explained that the difficulty likely involves the limits of human reasoning and language. It is a Mystery.

 

[Richca]

If the OP’s topic–“Son of God, Son of Man: Modes of Presence”–doesn’t concern Christology, I don’t know what would.

The question has been answered. Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, is the Son of God and of one nature, True God and True Man. These are not ever separate or distinct modes of presence.

The difficulty, as we have explained, is in reconciling the seemingly differing natures of the Father (being) and the Son (being and matter). I have explained that the difficulty likely involves the limits of human reasoning and language. It is a Mystery.

Christ is not of one nature. He is one person, the second person of the Trinity, in two natures, namely, a divine and a human nature. This was professed by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon.
Secondly, the divine nature of the Son is not of a different nature or substance as the Father. This was professed at the first Council of Nicaea. The Son is consubstantial [of the same substance, nature] with the Father. This nature is the divine nature. The Son is God as the Father is God as well as the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are three persons in one divine substance, nature, essence. The Trinity is one God because there is only one divine substance or nature which all three persons possess.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the OP’s topic–“Son of God, Son of Man: Modes of Presence”–doesn’t concern Christology, I don’t know what would.

The question has been answered. Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, is the Son of God and of one nature, True God and True Man. These are not ever separate or distinct modes of presence.

The difficulty, as we have explained, is in reconciling the seemingly differing natures of the Father (being) and the Son (being and matter). I have explained that the difficulty likely involves the limits of human reasoning and language. It is a Mystery.

The topic was the different modes of Presence of the Second Person of the Trinity. You two have ignored that and concentrated on the theology of Christ. You have ignored the topic of the O.P. in your last few posts. If you don’t get back on topic I will ask the moderator to close the thread.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

Christ is not of one nature. He is one person, the second person of the Trinity, in two natures, namely, a divine and a human nature. This was professed by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon.
Secondly, the divine nature of the Son is not of a different nature or substance as the Father. This was professed at the first Council of Nicaea. The Son is consubstantial [of the same substance, nature] with the Father. This nature is the divine nature. The Son is God as the Father is God as well as the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are three persons in one divine substance, nature, essence. The Trinity is one God because there is only one divine substance or nature which all three persons possess.

I know it and even quoted it in a comment above. I spoke in haste while trying to understand something. It involves difficulties in my understanding of the varying translations of Greek and Latin of the Nicene Creed. Sorry. I’ll try to clarify if I ever work this out.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good, we understand one another. So far no one has disproved my contention as stated in the body of the O.P.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

So when we say God is now present in all things, do we mean the Trinity, as it was before the Coming of Christ? Are we talking about the spiritual Presence of the Second Person strictly? Or are we now to understand that it is Jesus the Man-God, the physical Christ, who is Present in all things. This latter idea seems incorrect to me. I think it is the Second Person ( not Jesus Christ ) who is present in all things, along with the other two Persons.

What do you think?

Linus2ndj

Here is what I think:

The Nicene Creed says the following: “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

The Only Begotten Son of God, the one Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all ages, always was, is now and always will be. Therefore, the Trinity did not change through Christ’s Incarnation in the world.

The Only Begotten Son of God IS Jesus Christ.

I do not believe that Christ, though he has two natures–both True God and True Man–has separate modes of presence. That is to say, I believe the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, has the nature of both True God and True Man.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is what I think:

The Nicene Creed says the following: “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

Yes, but this must be very carefully explained. The Incarnate Jesus Christ is not eternally begotten in the flesh, physically, considered in his earthly physicality or in his glorified body. God’s Son is always eternally begotten, but not eternally in the flesh.

The Only Begotten Son of God, the one Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all ages, always was, is now and always will be. Therefore, the Trinity did not change through Christ’s Incarnation in the world.

Again we must distinguish between the Son who is eternally begotten as the Son, but who has not always existed physically. The Son is always eternally begotten, but the Son was not always in the flesh.

You see now why I raised the point. Becauise the Catechisms do not make this distinction clear. And since Christ has four defined modes of existence, then he governs with the Trinity, in the spiritual mode of his existence, outside these four defined physical modes.

Linus2nd.

I do not believe that Christ, though he has two natures–both True God and True Man–has separate modes of presence. That is to say, I believe the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, has the nature of both True God and True Man.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have written the troublesome pharse in the Creed here underlined as it should be read.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father
before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten,
not made, consubstantial with the Father;

Notice that " the Only Begotten Son of God " means that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God but that the emphasis is on the Son of God, it is the Son of God who is Begotten and Jesus Christ is Begotten because he is the Son of God. But this does not mean that the body of the Son of God existed eternally, because his body was born in time of the Holy Virgin, Mary. And there are only four defined instances in which the body of the Son of God is shown to be actually present: 1. during the 33 years of Christ’s earthly life, 2nd, during the forty days after his Resurrection, now at the right hand of the Father, and 4th in the consecrated Eucharist.

Therefore we conclude that the governance of the world, including the governing of the Church, the bestowal of graces is done by the Son of God ( along with the Father and the Holy Spirit ), minus the body of the Son of God. That is that Jesus Christ, the man, is not active in this governance but the Son of God is. If it were otherwise we would have to believe that the Son of God is physically present throughout creation, most intimately, as he is in the Eucharist. And that just doesn’t seem likely. In other words the Son of God governs with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but he need not do so through the instrumentality of the physical body of Jesus Christ.In other words the Son of God has two modes of existence, one spiritual and the other physical and he can be and is operative, simultaneously, in both modes of his existence.

Supportive argument for this is the fact that while the Son of God was physically working in the world during his earthly life as the earthly Messiah, he was fully united with the Father and the Holy Spirit both in his body and in heaven. Thus, during his earthly life, his Father speakes to him from heaven at least three times and at his baptism the Father and the Holy Spirit come from heaven to witness to his Divinity.

Again, if Jesus Christ can work in the world physically without the visible presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit, why can’t the governance of the world be done without the presence of the body of the Son?

Linus2nd