What does RCC teaches regarding the distinction between Jesus Christ and Son?

[orthodoxlurker]

I recently encountered several RCC expressing confusion between:

a) Son, being fully Divine but not human at all, as (co-eternal, co-equal, etc.) hypostasis/person of the Holy Trinity,

and

b) Jesus Christ as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, both fully Divine and fully human.

I’ve pointed several times about the grave consequences this error can bear, particularly having in mind wish of some posters to call Son the Creator, too. But the only poster I do know is knowledgeable and familiar in RCC theology seemed not bothered to correct their erros.

I’ve nearly been accused for Nestorianism for pointing to their errors.

So, my question is:

Do Roman Catholics make the distinction between Son, whom exists co-eternally within the Holy Trinity prior to the time (so there was not when He was not), and Jesus Christ, whom came into the existence as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, died, resurrected and ascended into heavens at the right side of Father?

If you don’t make the distinction, kindly let me know and, if possible, inform when did you adopt that grave error as a teaching. If you do make the distinction, let someone correct the errors of those Catholic posters at that thread in the Eastern board, because I don’t have the time to waste to repeat it to someone who is deaf to listen.

 

[Ghosty]

I recently encountered several RCC expressing confusion between:

a) Son, being fully Divine but not human at all, as (co-eternal, co-equal, etc.) hypostasis/person of the Holy Trinity,

and

b) Jesus Christ as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, both fully Divine and fully human.

I’ve pointed several times about the grave consequences this error can bear, particularly having in mind wish of some posters to call Son the Creator, too. But the only poster I do know is knowledgeable and familiar in RCC theology seemed not bothered to correct their erros.

I’ve nearly been accused for Nestorianism for pointing to their errors.

So, my question is:

Do Roman Catholics make the distinction between Son, whom exists co-eternally within the Holy Trinity prior to the time (so there was not when He was not), and Jesus Christ, whom came into the existence as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, died, resurrected and ascended into heavens at the right side of Father?

If you don’t make the distinction, kindly let me know and, if possible, inform when did you adopt that grave error as a teaching. If you do make the distinction, let someone correct the errors of those Catholic posters at that thread in the Eastern board, because I don’t have the time to waste to repeat it to someone who is deaf to listen.

We make a distinction between the human nature and the Divine Nature, but we do NOT make any distinction between the Person of the Son and the Person of Christ. There is one Person of the Son, and Christ is that Person; that the human nature was assumed in time does not change that fact.

To separate the Person of Christ from the Person of the Son is indeed the error of Nestorius, and it is because of that error that the term Theotokos came into such prominence as referring to Mary. Mary is truly the mother of God the Son by way of His human nature, not merely the mother of Christ.

So we must affirm that Christ is “the maker of Heaven and Earth” as the Creed says, though we don’t say that His human nature made Heaven and Earth (that would be impossible). Rather we say that Christ made Heaven and Earth by His Divine Nature. Since the Divine Son is Christ, we can attribute the actions of the Son to Christ, but since the Divine Nature is not the human nature we can’t attribute Divine actions to human power.

I can write with my right hand and hold a sandwich with my left; Ghosty does both, but the left hand doesn’t write. Jesus Christ is a Personal name, a “who”, not merely the name given to the human nature, a “what”, so we can say that Christ created the world and Christ died, the first by His Divine Nature, and the second by His human nature, without at all dividing the Person of Christ.

Make any sense?

Peace and God bless!

 

[MH84]

I recently encountered several RCC expressing confusion between:

a) Son, being fully Divine but not human at all, as (co-eternal, co-equal, etc.) hypostasis/person of the Holy Trinity,

and

b) Jesus Christ as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, both fully Divine and fully human.

I’ve pointed several times about the grave consequences this error can bear, particularly having in mind wish of some posters to call Son the Creator, too. But the only poster I do know is knowledgeable and familiar in RCC theology seemed not bothered to correct their erros.

I’ve nearly been accused for Nestorianism for pointing to their errors.

So, my question is:

Do Roman Catholics make the distinction between Son, whom exists co-eternally within the Holy Trinity prior to the time (so there was not when He was not), and Jesus Christ, whom came into the existence as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, died, resurrected and ascended into heavens at the right side of Father?

If you don’t make the distinction, kindly let me know and, if possible, inform when did you adopt that grave error as a teaching. If you do make the distinction, let someone correct the errors of those Catholic posters at that thread in the Eastern board, because I don’t have the time to waste to repeat it to someone who is deaf to listen.

For what its worth, I think you are right here except I think you made a mistake when you said “Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos”.

I have to admit I previously would not have thought an error if someone would say that Jesus as a member of the Holy Trinity created the world. But as you point out Jesus was ‘only’ the Son prior to the Incarnation. But from henceforth, I think Jesus and the Son can be used interchangeably when referring to the Second Perosn of the Divine Trinity.

I have to admit it didn’t sound quite right when someone said Jesus is the Creator. But then again, actually I think that we can say “Jesus” created the world because that is now just another name for the Second Person of the Trinity. The Son will always be known as Jesus.

Someone correct me if im wrong.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

To separate the Person of Christ from the Person of the Son is indeed the error of Nestorius,

I undoubtedly agree, but

Ghosty:

So we must affirm that Christ is “the maker of Heaven and Earth” as the Creed says, though we don’t say that His human nature made Heaven and Earth (that would be impossible). Rather we say that Christ made Heaven and Earth by His Divine Nature.

you just did that. Divine and human nature are united in Christ undividedly and unseparatably.

I was referring to the difference before Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit and of Theotokos, compared with after Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit and of Theotokos.

Regarding Son: There wasn’t (the time) when He was not. To say the opposite would be Edit: Arianism (instead of Nestorianism that was lapsus).

Regarding Jesus Christ There was the time when He was not. And I am not sure what saying the opposite amounts to.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

For what its worth, I think you are right here except I think you made a mistake when you said “Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos”.

I don’t think so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Nicene Creed
…
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
…

 

[Leopard]

For what its worth, I think you are right here except I think you made a mistake when you said “Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos”…

I can see where you are coming from here, as this statement can look like it is saying that the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) is the Spirit of Theotokos (Mary). This would be wrong, but it is not the meaning of this statement. Some punctuation might make this clearer:

…Son’s incarnation**,** by the Holy Spirit**,** of Theotokos…

or clearer still, the statement as it is expressed in a more modern version of the Apostles Creed:

…He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary…

 

[Joab_Anias]

I recently encountered several RCC expressing confusion between:

a) Son, being fully Divine but not human at all, as (co-eternal, co-equal, etc.) hypostasis/person of the Holy Trinity,

and

b) Jesus Christ as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, both fully Divine and fully human.

I found this that points to a difference in Praxis as the root of the confusion. Its quite interesting.

The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology.

In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God’s Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.

This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.

**The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God’s external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. **Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, “Ad Serap.”, I, xxxi; Basil, “De Spiritu Sancto”, n. 38; Cyril of Alexandria, “De Trin. dial.”, VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief “in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost.”

V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY

 

[Ghosty]

I undoubtedly agree, but

you just did that. Divine and human nature are united in Christ undividedly and unseparatably.

I was referring to the difference before Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit and of Theotokos, compared with after Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit and of Theotokos.

Regarding Son: There wasn’t (the time) when He was not. To say the opposite would be Edit: Arianism (instead of Nestorianism that was lapsus).

Regarding Jesus Christ There was the time when He was not. And I am not sure what saying the opposite amounts to.

If there was a time when Christ was not, then the Creed lies when it says:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

The Person of Christ is the Person of the Son, though this Person did not always have a human nature. We can say in the Creed that Jesus Christ made all things precisely because the Person of Jesus Christ is God. So we can say that there was a time when Jesus Christ didn’t have a human nature, but we can’t say that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not. Jesus Christ is not merely the combination of human and Divine natures; He’s a Person who came to have two natures.

Peace and God bless!

 

[VociMike]

Well, we confess (as do you), that we “believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father.”

 

[Ghosty]

Joab Anias: That’s actually a very simplistic reduction, especially given the current discussion. It is the Latins who are defending Divine Personhood as opposed to the “essence” approach of Orthodoxlurker.

While it’s true that Western theology views Personhood as logically following on Nature, rather than the reverse, it’s not true that the West uses the Nature to conclude Persons, and not even St. Augustine had such an approach. Rather we simply point out that any Person must have a Nature in order to be at all, and therefore Personhood “arises” from Nature rather than the other way around. From there we make our distinctions between the Persons.

It’s also a bit erroneous to say that the West doesn’t make distinctions between the various operations of the Divine Persons in relation to Creation. While it’s true that the West doesn’t view them as contributing something unique of their own to the “mix” of Creation, it certainly teaches that certain actions are appropriated to individual Divine Persons, not in such a way as to make them separate contributors, but to indicate the unique aspect of their Personhood in the nature of what is Created.

Hence, for example, we’d say that the Father is Source, the Son is the Form, and the Holy Spirit the being or Life, without in any way implying that these things arise from the Persons separately as opposed to as part of the Divine Operation. In fact, it’s precisely this appropriation and distinction that is at the root of St. Augustine’s explanations of the Trinity, particularly when it comes to his analogy of the human person to the Divine Nature (“I am, I know that I am, I love that I am” for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Peace and God bless!

 

[foundthelight]

There is no distinction. From the CCC

[468](javascript:OpenPopupWindow() 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

To make a distinction is heresy.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Joab Anias: That’s actually a very simplistic reduction.

I thought the Orthodox would have it no other way than simplistic reduction.

 

[Ghosty]

I thought the Orthodox would have it no other way than simplistic reduction.

That’s an interesting an unwarranted dig at the Orthodox, I think.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Joab_Anias]

That’s an interesting an unwarranted dig at the Orthodox, I think.

It’s an observation of a contradiction.

That’s odd you would feel that way though because one could think your statement;

Joab Anias: That’s actually a very simplistic reduction.

About;

**The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God’s external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. **Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, “Ad Serap.”, I, xxxi; Basil, “De Spiritu Sancto”, n. 38; Cyril of Alexandria, “De Trin. dial.”, VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief “in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost.”

V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY

Was actually an unwarranted dig against the CE and New Advent .com which if you take the time to absorb you should find as anything but simplistic or reduction.

If you mean that its simplistic because its incomplete then thats why the link is included.

If you prefer simple the quote from the CCC above also points out information that supports what the CE says.

In the context of the question I think both answer it just fine.

In the context of the motivation for the question that was disparity over how each praxis views the unity of Christ differently then I think it is still answered.

We have one God in three persons. Not three seperate Gods.

Perhaps this is one area where Orthodoxy should develope its understanding, I think.

Peace.

 

[Ghosty]

For what it’s worth I consider the Old Catholic Encyclopedia to be relatively worthless in articulating the differences between Eastern and Western theology, as do most folks who study the issue. I didn’t even bother to look at where the link led to, but it doesn’t surprise me to know.

Perhaps this is one area where Orthodoxy should develope its understanding, I think.

I agree completely on this. It is one of the major stumbling blocks between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, yet the Catholic Church has resolved this matter between ourselves and the Oriental Orthodox.

I wouldn’t say that the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians by any stretch, but the imprecision of their theology in this case, at least as it’s often presented online, can easily lead to such a conclusion. After all, Orthodoxlurker’s statements here directly contradict the Nicene Creed, which is an indicator of the need for more precise theology, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I recently encountered several RCC expressing confusion between:

a) Son, being fully Divine but not human at all, as (co-eternal, co-equal, etc.) hypostasis/person of the Holy Trinity,

and

b) Jesus Christ as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, both fully Divine and fully human.

I’ve pointed several times about the grave consequences this error can bear, particularly having in mind wish of some posters to call Son the Creator, too. But the only poster I do know is knowledgeable and familiar in RCC theology seemed not bothered to correct their erros.

I’ve nearly been accused for Nestorianism for pointing to their errors.

So, my question is:

Do Roman Catholics make the distinction between Son, whom exists co-eternally within the Holy Trinity prior to the time (so there was not when He was not), and Jesus Christ, whom came into the existence as Son’s incarnation by the Holy Spirit of Theotokos, died, resurrected and ascended into heavens at the right side of Father?

If you don’t make the distinction, kindly let me know and, if possible, inform when did you adopt that grave error as a teaching. If you do make the distinction, let someone correct the errors of those Catholic posters at that thread in the Eastern board, because I don’t have the time to waste to repeat it to someone who is deaf to listen.

What grave error ?​

The Person of the Eternal Word assumed a human nature in time, so that the Person of the Word is the Person of the Word Incarnate - the man Who is God in Person has come into existence: His human nature is created, & is the human nature of the Word Who is by Nature & Person God, co-equal & co-eternal with the Father & the Spirit. We believe in the Hypostatic Union - we do not reject it. In this Union, each nature retains what is proper to it, without change or mixture or confusion, just as the Tome of Leo teaches: if the Fathers at Chalcedon recognised its teaching as orthodox, Orthodox Christians have no business to think otherwise. It remains part of the doctrine & tradition we accept, hold, & maintain.

The change is in what has been created - in His human nature; not in His Unique & Uncreated Divine Nature, which is common to all three Divine Persons. He is no more changed by assuming in the instant of its creation the nature He has created, than by creating it or any other creature.

We are not Nestorians either, nor

• Monophysites
• nor Monothelites
• Aphartodocetists
• Tetradites
• nor even Adoptionists
• nor Psilanthropists
• Docetists
• Modalists
• Arians
• Homoians
• Pneumatomachians
  nor any other such thing. All these errors have been condemned. Nor are we Apollinarians - the Word was truly “made flesh” & born as man having a true human soul, truly suffered, truly died, was truly raised in glory from the dead, truly ascended, & will truly “come again in glory to judge the living & the dead”. And of this His true, real & substantial Presence in the Consecrated Gifts through the transforming grace of the Holy Spirit is a sign & guarantee.

Why is it taken for granted that we are heretics in our doctrine on the Incarnation ? St. Leo I, St. Leontius of Byzantium, St. Maximus the Confessor, & St. Martin I (to mention no one else) would not be among the Saints of the Church of which we are members, if that Church rejected their doctrine. Is every Orthodox Christian certain to believe about the Incarnation only what has been authentically & authoritatively taught ? Those Orthodox Christians who cannot answer “Yes”, might like to think twice before trying us by a standard they themselves cannot reach.

As for “correcting” others - been there, done that, in that forum, on a different subject, to no effect whatever; which is why I have given up trying; “I don’t have the time to waste to repeat it to someone who is [too] deaf to listen” either. I never cease to be amazed & depressed, in equal measure, by Orthodox ignorance of Catholicism; it is no different from Catholic ignorance of Orthodoxy. We should be trying to overcome the obstacles of the past - not building them up again. If people don’t wish to believe others - there is nothing to be done about it; nothing can be - it takes two to tango, not one.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t think so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Although your meaning is clear, the choice of words *could *suggest that you were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Theotokos.​

If you are going to judge the reality of our doctrine by ill-worded formulations of it, you cannot complain if we do the same when an Orthodox Christian is less exact than might be desired. Faulty expressions of what is true are not found only among us Romans. Unfortunately.

The solution ? To give each other the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Joab_Anias]

For what it’s worth I consider the Old Catholic Encyclopedia to be relatively worthless in articulating the differences between Eastern and Western theology, as do most folks who study the issue. I didn’t even bother to look at where the link led to, but it doesn’t surprise me to know.

I agree completely on this. It is one of the major stumbling blocks between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, yet the Catholic Church has resolved this matter between ourselves and the Oriental Orthodox.

I wouldn’t say that the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians by any stretch, but the imprecision of their theology in this case, at least as it’s often presented online, can easily lead to such a conclusion. After all, Orthodoxlurker’s statements here directly contradict the Nicene Creed, which is an indicator of the need for more precise theology, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

The purpose of the CE isn’t do differentiate between us. It simply states where we are theologically and explains how we have arrived there.

I really don’t think the Orthodox would find anything contrary in the doctrine of the Trinity described there.

That is why I used it. I believe this is one of those issues that we are in line on but just express differently.

That was my point for showing the bolded quote from the CE as it seemed to support my conclusion that there is no actual desparity of cult but only of praxis and also addressed the OP very well. I must say I still feel it does.

If you refuse to look at it thats your perogative. Much of its development was pre-schism and is richly based on the early Church so I thought it would garner more interest.

Peace.

 

[Ghosty]

I agree that there’s no actual disparity of cult, I just think that even the apparent disparity of theology is exaggerated in certain sources (icluding the CE, which is notoriously bad at explaining Eastern theology).

God bless!

 

[Joab_Anias]

I agree that there’s no actual disparity of cult, I just think that even the apparent disparity of theology is exaggerated in certain sources (icluding the CE, which is notoriously bad at explaining Eastern theology).

God bless!

It would be nice if there was an OE. Or a central authority that one could fall back on for consensual EO teaching where information was easily accessable.

Peace.