Was Jesus Able to Formulate Thoughts Inside of Mary's Womb?

[AmbroseSJ]

JMKC:

That Christ is a Divine Person is also the language of St. Thomas here, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 470:

With all respect, I must advise you that you are confusing what St. Thomas is saying. He is speaking of the Divine Person (meaning the Second PERSON of the Blessed Trinity in those quotes of yours.)

There are TWO understandings of PERSON going on here.
There are the THREE PERSONS in ONE GOD.
There is the PERSON of JESUS CHRIST.

Don’t confuse the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity with the PERSON of Jesus Christ when reading Theological literature. They have two distinct meanings.

Therefore you are being easily misunderstood in this thread because of that imprecision.

If you study the Athansian Creed, you will see that the PERSON of Jesus Christ IS THE HYPOSTATIC UNION of the fully human nature (body and soul) united to the Divine Nature (The Only Begotten Son, the Second PERSON of the Blessed Trinity) without mingling or separation.

Therefore when speaking of Jesus Christ it is IMPRECISE to say (as I mentioned earlier) that Jesus Christ is a Divine Person, although by the HYPOSTATIC UNION he is joined to the Divine Only Begotten Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, BECAUSE it IMPLIES a denial of His Humanity, and is therefore subject to misinterpretation by your hearers or readers.

If you stay within the proper credal understandings and expressions of the Person Jesus Christ, you will not be so easily misunderstood.

From the Catechism: "468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.“94”

Again we see here how the Church (in her catechism and at the Fifth Council of Const.) has two understandings of “PERSON.” The Divine Only Begotten Son, and the “hypostasis [or person]” which is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Athanasian Creed succinctly expresses this Faith of the Council.

 

[JMKC]

From the Catechism: "468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.“94”

Again we see here how the Church (in her catechism and at the Fifth Council of Const.) has two understandings of “PERSON.” The Divine Only Begotten Son, and the “hypostasis [or person]” which is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Athanasian Creed succinctly expresses this Faith of the Council.

Hi AbroseSJ. I’m really enjoying our discussion

I think there may be a misunderstanding of the terms occurring here. The catechism quote above demonstrates that the hypostasis of Jesus Christ is the Divine Person of the Son: “one of the Trinity”. That quote is effectively demonstrating that the Church holds that the Person of Christ is the hypostasis of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. As it says, everything that Christ does is attributed to His Divine Person, therefore it’s the Divine Person who acted through His two natures: human and Divine. Both of course, were united hypostatically.

 

[JMKC]

Just another quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on “Person”:

The human nature of Christ does not exist per se seorsum, but in alio, in the Divine Personality of the Word. It is therefore communicated by assumption and so is not a person. Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person.

So, because human nature is not a person, and the Divine Essence (Nature) is not a Person, when both are together, they likewise cannot be a Person, but rather are the natures of a Person, namely the Person of the Word, the Son of God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JMKC:

So, because human nature is not a person, and the Divine Essence (Nature) is not a Person, when both are together, they likewise cannot be a Person, but rather are the natures of a Person, namely the Person of the Word, the Son of God.

Correction: namely the Person of Jesus Christ.

From the Athanasian Creed:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person.

Your statement: “when both are together, they likewise cannot be a Person”

Is opposed to Church Doctrine, the 5th Council of Constantinople, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Athanasian Creed above. The word “person” used here is English for the Greek word “Hypostasis.” We are not using the word in the English colloquial sense by any means, and I thought I made that very clear.

 

[JMKC]

Correction: namely the Person of Jesus Christ.

From the Athanasian Creed:

Your statement: “when both are together, they likewise cannot be a Person”

Is opposed to Church Doctrine, the 5th Council of Constantinople, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Athanasian Creed above. The word “person” used here is English for the Greek word “Hypostasis.” We are not using the word in the English colloquial sense by any means, and I thought I made that very clear.

I understand. Each Person of the Trinity can also properly be called a Hypostasis. Maybe we’re speaking differently here. It sounds to me like you’re saying that Jesus Christ and the Person of the Son are not the same. If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know. Everything above that we’ve both quoted is clear that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. A new hypostasis was not created at the Incarnation. Rather, the Son assumed a human nature, and united it to His Divine Nature.

And what I should have said is that when the two natures are together, they don 't of themselves constitute a person. They are possessed by a Person, but aside from the Son, they can’t properly be called a Person, sinces natures aren’t persons.

 

[JMKC]

This Ask An Apologist question and answer demonstrates what I’m trying to say: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=742541

 

[GEddie]

“Hypostasis” sounds like a medical condition. Methinks if this issue is at all profitable to nonphilosophers, a translation is needed.

 

[JMKC]

“Hypostasis” sounds like a medical condition. Methinks if this issue is at all profitable to nonphilosophers, a translation is needed.

This gives an excellent definition that relates directly to the ongoing discussion: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34036

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JMKC:

And what I should have said is that when the two natures are together, they don’t of themselves constitute a person.

You don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the links you are posting yourself.

From the Dictionary link for HYPOSTASIS:

An individual, complete substance existing entirely in itself; an incommunicable substance. The term used by the Church to identify the persons in the Trinity and the union of two natures in one divine person in Christ.

Therefore the PERSON (Hypostasis) of Jesus Christ is the Union of the TWO natures: The human nature and the Divine Nature.

A new hypostasis was not created at the Incarnation

Wrong! That is EXACTLY what the Church is saying!

Before the Incarnation, there was NO Jesus Christ the PERSON. Instead the PERSON of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of the Father existed from all Eternity.

You have to try and remember that “person” is being used in a theological sense. Plus you also have to remember that the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation are the TWO MOST PROFOUND MYSTERIES of CHRISTIANITY.

 

[JMKC]

You don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the links you are posting yourself.

From the Dictionary link for HYPOSTASIS:

Therefore the PERSON (Hypostasis) of Jesus Christ is the Union of the TWO natures: The human nature and the Divine Nature.

Wrong! That is EXACTLY what the Church is saying!

Before the Incarnation, there was NO Jesus Christ the PERSON. Instead the PERSON of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of the Father existed from all Eternity.

You have to try and remember that “person” is being used in a theological sense. Plus you also have to remember that the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation are the TWO MOST PROFOUND MYSTERIES of CHRISTIANITY.

To clarify whether we’re on the same page, do you mean that Jesus is a different person than the Person of the Word? This was the question we started with. I may have used the term hypostasis incorrectly somewhere (I’ll have to review what I’ve said), but the Ask an Apologist link I posted seemed to answer our original question.

As a note, when I said that a new hypostasis wasn’t created at the Incarnation, what I meant was that a new person was not created. I meant “hypostasis” in the sense of “person”. We believe that Christ is one Person with two natures, not two persons, which is what would be implied if a new person were created at the Incarnation.

This details what I’m trying to express: newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article4

Therefore, inasmuch as the Word has a human nature united to Him, which does not belong to His Divine Nature, it follows that the union took place in the Person of the Word, and not in the nature.

 

[JMKC]

This [from the above http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article3”]link] also gets across what I’m trying to say. I’m adding these quotes not to argue, but to more fully explain what I’ve been trying to express.

Therefore it is plainly a heresy condemned long since by the Church to say that in Christ there are two hypostases, or two supposita, or that the union did not take place in the hypostasis or suppositum. Hence in the same Synod (can. 2) it is said: “If anyone does not confess that the Word was united to flesh in subsistence, and that Christ with His flesh is both–to wit, God and man–let him be anathema.”

“in the hypostasis” here refers to the hypostasis of the Word.

and:

Therefore, if there is any hypostasis in Christ besides the hypostasis of the Word, it follows that whatever pertains to man is verified of some other than the Word, e.g. that He was born of a Virgin, suffered, was crucified, was buried. And this, too, was condemned with the approval of the Council of Ephesus

and the Person of the Word is eternal, so it couldn’t have been created at the Incarnation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The problem as I see it is this: You use the word “person” in a colloquial sense and I am not.

You are also introducing new terminology: “the Word.”

You and I are probably in agreement generally speaking, but I think your resistance to formal definitions for person and hypostasis is causing problems (as I mentioned earlier, your posts are very easily misunderstood because of your imprecise language.)

Since this discussion is outside the topic of this thread, and has already persisted beyond endurance for some (I suppose) I will leave our respective understandings and posts as they currently stand.

 

[JMKC]

The problem as I see it is this: You use the word “person” in a colloquial sense and I am not.

You are also introducing new terminology: “the Word.”

You and I are probably in agreement generally speaking, but I think your resistance to formal definitions for person and hypostasis is causing problems (as I mentioned earlier, your posts are very easily misunderstood because of your imprecise language.)

Since this discussion is outside the topic of this thread, and has already persisted beyond endurance for some (I suppose) I will leave our respective understandings and posts as they currently stand.

I agree, we have gone off the original topic. I think this might have been a case of both of us speaking of two different things, but thinking we’re on the same page.

To wrap things up, I would say we can be in mutual agreement about the following from the Catholic Encylcopedia:

The Divine Logos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of the human person. In this way, the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus has a human personality.

Try and define what you mean when you use the word person in regards to the Incarnate Word. from what I have read here, I am not sure everyone is using the same definition for the word person.

for example, when I speak of the mystery of the Incarnation and apply the word person to Jesus of Nazareth I mean that which gives Jesus existence.

other than Jesus, every human being is a created person. we are given existence through creation. Jesus was never given existence through creation. His human nature was created, but He pre-existed His human nature.

the Word became flesh.

human words are inadequate for completely explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, but they can certainly add breadth and depth to our understanding.

I do not believe that Jesus was two persons, a created person and an uncreated person.

 

[JMKC]

Jesus has a human personality.

Try and define what you mean when you use the word person in regards to the Incarnate Word. from what I have read here, I am not sure everyone is using the same definition for the word person.

I would use the following definitions, which will hopefully help to clarify what I have said

A hypostasis is a complete individual substance that operates in its own way. A hypostasis is a person when it operates with an intellect and a will.

 

[JMKC]

So, it’s proper to say that the Son of God is a Person, and that Jesus Christ is the same Person. I recently completed a graduate level Christology course, and, just to make sure, consulted a trusted friend who is soon to be ordained a priest. It is theologically accurate to say that Jesus Christ is the same person as the Son of God (there is no distinction between the two), and therefore is a Divine Person in two natures: one Divine and one human. We call this the hypostatic union. Another way to say this is that the Son of God united His human nature to His Divine Nature at the Incarnation.

 

[GEddie]

Getting away from all the philosophical fluff:

There is a difference between “knowing” and “thinking”.

Knowing is how our minds become wise, and requires a mind, but not necessarily a head (pure spirits have knowledge).

Thinking is the error-prone human process by which the mind acquires knowledge.

So while ICXC always had His divine knowledge, “formulating thought” would have waited for His human head to grow sufficiently to do it.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JMKC]

Getting away from all the philosophical fluff:

There is a difference between “knowing” and “thinking”.

Knowing is how our minds become wise, and requires a mind, but not necessarily a head (pure spirits have knowledge).

Thinking is the error-prone human process by which the mind acquires knowledge.

So while ICXC always had His divine knowledge, “formulating thought” would have waited for His human head to grow sufficiently to do it.

ICXC NIKA.

I absolutely agree. I realized earlier today that I didn’t read the OP’s question fully, and focussed on knowledge instead of the question at hand. Mea culpa. He would have thought to the extent that He was humanly able at any given age.