Two Natures Compromise?

[Flavius_Aetius]

So as Catholics we believe in two Natures of Jesus; one being Man the other being God. But as I look through history it seems that this decision is nothing more than a compromise made so the Church wouldn’t be divided completely by Arian and the other groups that had different beliefs about Jesus.

It all fits in secular terms, both sides moderates are satisfied and it loses alot of its credibility when you see that it just keeps the Church from breaking apart early on. Besides that it just feels like a compromise as well, I mean if Jesus was all God then he wouldn’t even be capable of sinning anyways. If he’s all man then their is no divinity in him.

 

[grannymh]

So as Catholics we believe in two Natures of Jesus; one being Man the other being God. But as I look through history it seems that this decision is nothing more than a compromise made so the Church wouldn’t be divided completely by Arian and the other groups that had different beliefs about Jesus.

It all fits in secular terms, both sides moderates are satisfied and it loses alot of its credibility when you see that it just keeps the Church from breaking apart early on. Besides that it just feels like a compromise as well, I mean if Jesus was all God then he wouldn’t even be capable of sinning anyways. If he’s all man then their is no divinity in him.

Don’t see any “compromise” just confusion about the existence of Jesus Christ. Either Jesus Christ existed as one person with two natures or He did not exist.

Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ exists.

If one says all man meaning that Jesus Christ has a true human nature and all God meaning that Jesus Christ has a divine nature – it is “both / and” as one person.
There is no “either / or”, [the mutually exclusive or] regarding the two natures of the one person, Jesus Christ.

Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man.

Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[jasev]

So as Catholics we believe in two Natures of Jesus; one being Man the other being God. But as I look through history it seems that this decision is nothing more than a compromise made so the Church wouldn’t be divided completely by Arian and the other groups that had different beliefs about Jesus.

It all fits in secular terms, both sides moderates are satisfied and it loses alot of its credibility when you see that it just keeps the Church from breaking apart early on. Besides that it just feels like a compromise as well, I mean if Jesus was all God then he wouldn’t even be capable of sinning anyways. If he’s all man then their is no divinity in him.

I don’t think I would call it a compromise as much as I would an attempt to clarify what Christians (proto-Orthodox and then Orthodox) believed about Jesus. On the one hand there was Arianisim which asserted he was just an exhalted human and on the other hand there was the gnostic-inspired assertion that he was only a spiritual being and couldn’t have been human with a physical body because physical nature was bad and created by the demiurge. That’s still quite a simplification and ignoring a number of other theories/heresies explored on the way to defining the two natures as the Orthodox belief.

Peace.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think I would call it a compromise as much as I would an attempt to clarify what Christians (proto-Orthodox and then Orthodox) believed about Jesus. On the one hand there was Arianisim which asserted he was just an exhalted human and on the other hand there was the gnostic-inspired assertion that he was only a spiritual being and couldn’t have been human with a physical body because physical nature was bad and created by the demiurge. That’s still quite a simplification and ignoring a number of other theories/heresies explored on the way to defining the two natures as the Orthodox belief.

Peace.

CLARIFY – that is the exact word. However, it wasn’t what Christians believed that needed clarifying. It was what Jesus, Himself, taught about His own Person and His two natures which needed to be believed.

Divine Revelation was at stake as time moved away from direct contact with Jesus and the Apostles. It was now time to let the Holy Spirit guide. Letting the Holy Spirit guide is what the Catholic Church has done since the first Church Council recorded in Acts. In reality, while Divine Revelation is complete; it has not been made completely explicit. It is the mission of the Catholic Church to grasp the full significance of Jesus’ teachings over the course of centuries.

I am not saying that the Catholic Church has to correct or change Divine Revelation. Rather, the Church has to preserve the truth of Divine Revelation. Often, the Catholic Church steps in when its teachers are out of tune. It needs to be remembered that the visible Church is made up of humans. For example, when the Greek theologian Arius wandered from the truth of Jesus, the Catholic Church prayed, studied, listened to the Holy Spirit for a long time in order to make sure that what it declared as doctrine was in fact Divine Revelation.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So as Catholics we believe in two Natures of Jesus; one being Man the other being God. But as I look through history it seems that this decision is nothing more than a compromise made so the Church wouldn’t be divided completely by Arian and the other groups that had different beliefs about Jesus.

It all fits in secular terms, both sides moderates are satisfied and it loses alot of its credibility when you see that it just keeps the Church from breaking apart early on. Besides that it just feels like a compromise as well, I mean if Jesus was all God then he wouldn’t even be capable of sinning anyways. If he’s all man then their is no divinity in him.

The Church simply settled the issue by clearly teaching what was Divinely Revealed. From our point of view that might look like a compromise.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church simply settled the issue by clearly teaching what was Divinely Revealed. From our point of view that might look like a compromise.

Exactly.

Many of the heretics actually helped us to better define the undefinable. I’m of the opinion that most of them were not deliberately heretical; they were convinced that they had the correct interpretation of a most un-understandable notion.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Can someone show me in the catechism or some other offical source what it is we actually believe when talking about two natures? As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind. Besides that its confusing to think about where the sacrifice is if there is one part fully God and another Fully man. Can the part that is God ever sin? Can the part that was man ever given in to temptation of sin despite sharing a vessel with a full God?

It’s all very confusing to me…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can someone show me in the catechism or some other offical source what it is we actually believe when talking about two natures? As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind. Besides that its confusing to think about where the sacrifice is if there is one part fully God and another Fully man. Can the part that is God ever sin? Can the part that was man ever given in to temptation of sin despite sharing a vessel with a full God?

It’s all very confusing to me…

We believe that Jesus Christ is ONE person, Two Natures, 100% Divine and 100% human. His human will was fully in union with His Divine will, He could experience temptation but would not give into temptation.

 

[NHInsider]

Can someone show me in the catechism or some other offical source what it is we actually believe when talking about two natures? As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind. Besides that its confusing to think about where the sacrifice is if there is one part fully God and another Fully man. Can the part that is God ever sin? Can the part that was man ever given in to temptation of sin despite sharing a vessel with a full God?

It’s all very confusing to me…

Well, here is the summary from the Catechism (the section begins at #436) :

479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

But since you mentioned (twice) how confusing this is, I think it is probably worth mentioning the concept of “Mystery” - in point of fact, because our brains are finite, we cannot fully comprehend the Infinite - we accept some things (mysteries) on faith because they are revealed, despite the fact that we can’t understand them.

 

[Chesster]

Can someone show me in the catechism or some other offical source what it is we actually believe when talking about two natures? As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind. Besides that its confusing to think about where the sacrifice is if there is one part fully God and another Fully man. Can the part that is God ever sin? Can the part that was man ever given in to temptation of sin despite sharing a vessel with a full God?

It’s all very confusing to me…

Go here and scroll down to the section entitled “The Doctrine of God the Redeemer”.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Well the theology of the Hypostatic Union is not a simple thing by any means! It is indeed a mystery. To really delve into it you can read part of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa and especially I refer you to part III, questions 2-4 or so.
fishersnet.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_26667_1%26url%3D

But I would recommend, in particular, a wonderful book that is much more readable than the Summa: Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Our Saviour and His Love for Us. This book really goes into the mystery of Jesus Christ. I think it would be very beneficial for you and for all!

 

[grannymh]

As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind.

It’s all very confusing to me…

Pardon me, what is confusing to me is the lack of understanding about God and His relationship with humanity.

In my humble opinion, Posts 1 and 7 are confusing because one has dashed ahead to one of the deepest mysteries of Catholicism without a good grip on basic Catholicism. First, one needs to understand how man broke the original friendship with God and how God promised us a way to repair the damage. Then one needs to know that Jesus Christ did not leave us orphans but rather established the Catholic Church to guide us to perfect peace and love in eternal life.

My first suggestion is to learn about Jesus Christ and His mission on earth.
Go to the top of the screen. Click Faith, then click Library. And simply explore the topics. My second suggestion is to read the Gospels slowly. Think about the scene being portrayed. Let yourself get to know Jesus Christ. Fall in love with Jesus and listen to Him.

When you are ready to deal with deep mysteries of Catholicism, refer to this easy definition.

The word mystery simply means – that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood. The two natures in one person are really there but it is hard to understand how that could be because our own eyes are limited. The truth of Jesus Christ is believed along with our faith in God.

Blessings,
granny

For further information about Catholic teaching read
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Use this handy link Be sure to scroll down to find the search box for the Catechism. Enter paragraph numbers or items.

 

[mardukm]

Can someone show me in the catechism or some other offical source what it is we actually believe when talking about two natures? As of now it makes it seem like God just made this man and decided to dwell in his mind. Besides that its confusing to think about where the sacrifice is if there is one part fully God and another Fully man. Can the part that is God ever sin? Can the part that was man ever given in to temptation of sin despite sharing a vessel with a full God?

It’s all very confusing to me…

Here’s something even more authoritative:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. John 1:1-3

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principilaties or authorities - all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

Arians claimed that Jesus was just a man who became divine. But Scripture says that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[crazzeto]

So as Catholics we believe in two Natures of Jesus; one being Man the other being God. But as I look through history it seems that this decision is nothing more than a compromise made so the Church wouldn’t be divided completely by Arian and the other groups that had different beliefs about Jesus.

It all fits in secular terms, both sides moderates are satisfied and it loses alot of its credibility when you see that it just keeps the Church from breaking apart early on. Besides that it just feels like a compromise as well, I mean if Jesus was all God then he wouldn’t even be capable of sinning anyways. If he’s all man then their is no divinity in him.

There was no compramise, this was the constant teaching of the Church, this teaching caused issues all over the place when it was finally made doctrinal actually.