Your thoughts?

[Ultima_Ratio]

I have a friend who will be writing an insert for Church bulletins. The following is a section from the first one. He is curious if anyone has any suggestions.

Can you answer these questions?

1.) Is Jesus true God, true man, or both?
2.) If Jesus is both God and man, does that mean he is two Persons?
3.) Were the actions performed by Jesus during His life Divine acts, or human
acts?
4.) Is it correct to say that God died for our sins?
5.) Did Jesus always know He was God?

In this month of January, which is dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus, we will examine some of the principle doctrines of Jesus Christ: of His Divinity, Humanity, and Incarnation. After reading this, you will be able to answer the above questions with clarity.

Jesus Christ: Two Natures, one Person:

Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two distinct natures, human and Divine. At the Incarnation, “when the Word was made flesh”, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity – the Word of God - united himself to a created human nature, but His Person remained the same. Even after the Incarnation, He remained the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, equal to God the Father and the Holy Ghost. Theologians refer to this union of the two natures in one Divine Person as the hypostatic union.

The human nature of Jesus, which was united to the one Divine Person, consisted of flesh and blood, a human soul, human intellect, and human will. In short, our Lord possessed a human nature identical to our own, except for sin. Therefore, it is true to say that Jesus, who is true God, is also a true man.

Actions are performed by a person, not by a nature:

When someone performs an action, it is the person who performs the act, not the nature. While the nature may be instrumental in the act, it is the person who performs it.

The *nature *of a thing tells us what it is; the person tells us who it is. Since Jesus has two natures – Divine and human - “what” Jesus is, is God and man; but since He is only one Person – a Divine Person - “who” He is, is God. Since actions are performed by a Person, not by a nature; and since Jesus is a Divine Person, it follows that all the actions performed by Jesus were Divine actions, of infinite value.

Did God die for our sins?

Although God can never cease to exist, it was possible for God to experience death in the human nature that He assumed. For man, death occurs when the body separates from the soul. Since our Lord possessed a true human nature, and since this human nature experienced the separation of body and soul, it is correct to say that God died for our sins, since the Person of Jesus, who experienced a human death for our sins, was God.

Did Jesus always know He was God?

From all eternity, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity knew that He would assume a human nature. Therefore, by virtue of His Divine Intellect, Jesus knew all things.

From the moment of the Incarnation – when the human nature of Jesus was created - His human intellect possessed two gifts: one that was given to the first man (Adam), namely, infused knowledge; and a second that the blessed in heaven posses - the beatific vision, whereby God is seen “face to face”.

Through infused knowledge, Jesus, as man, knew at once all that could be known, firstly, by the power of the human intellect, and secondly through revelation. Through the beatific vision of God, Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect of the Word of God. Therefore, even in his human intellect, but not by virtue of His human intellect, Jesus Christ knew all things. As such, from the moment of His Incarnation, Jesus, as man, knew He was God. END

Due to the limitations of writing space, a longer version complete with quotes from Councils, Catechims, and other sources, will be available for review online. He wants to know if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks,

Ultima

 

[ccolley2]

I have a friend who will be writing an insert for Church bulletins. The following is a section from the first one. He is curious if anyone has any suggestions.

Can you answer these questions?

1.) Is Jesus true God, true man, or both?
2.) If Jesus is both God and man, does that mean he is two Persons?
3.) Were the actions performed by Jesus during His life Divine acts, or human
acts?
4.) Is it correct to say that God died for our sins?
5.) Did Jesus always know He was God?

In this month of January, which is dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus, we will examine some of the principle doctrines of Jesus Christ: of His Divinity, Humanity, and Incarnation. After reading this, you will be able to answer the above questions with clarity.

Jesus Christ: Two Natures, one Person:

Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two distinct natures, human and Divine. At the Incarnation, “when the Word was made flesh”, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity – the Word of God - united himself to a created human nature, but His Person remained the same. Even after the Incarnation, He remained the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, equal to God the Father and the Holy Ghost. Theologians refer to this union of the two natures in one Divine Person as the hypostatic union.

The human nature of Jesus, which was united to the one Divine Person, consisted of flesh and blood, a human soul, human intellect, and human will. In short, our Lord possessed a human nature identical to our own, except for sin. Therefore, it is true to say that Jesus, who is true God, is also a true man.

Actions are performed by a person, not by a nature:

When someone performs an action, it is the person who performs the act, not the nature. While the nature may be instrumental in the act, it is the person who performs it.

The *nature *of a thing tells us what it is; the person tells us who it is. Since Jesus has two natures – Divine and human - “what” Jesus is, is God and man; but since He is only one Person – a Divine Person - “who” He is, is God. Since actions are performed by a Person, not by a nature; and since Jesus is a Divine Person, it follows that all the actions performed by Jesus were Divine actions, of infinite value.

Did God die for our sins?

Although God can never cease to exist, it was possible for God to experience death in the human nature that He assumed. For man, death occurs when the body separates from the soul. Since our Lord possessed a true human nature, and since this human nature experienced the separation of body and soul, it is correct to say that God died for our sins, since the Person of Jesus, who experienced a human death for our sins, was God.

Did Jesus always know He was God?

From all eternity, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity knew that He would assume a human nature. Therefore, by virtue of His Divine Intellect, Jesus knew all things.

From the moment of the Incarnation – when the human nature of Jesus was created - His human intellect possessed two gifts: one that was given to the first man (Adam), namely, infused knowledge; and a second that the blessed in heaven posses - the beatific vision, whereby God is seen “face to face”.

Through infused knowledge, Jesus, as man, knew at once all that could be known, firstly, by the power of the human intellect, and secondly through revelation. Through the beatific vision of God, Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect of the Word of God. Therefore, even in his human intellect, but not by virtue of His human intellect, Jesus Christ knew all things. As such, from the moment of His Incarnation, Jesus, as man, knew He was God. END

Due to the limitations of writing space, a longer version complete with quotes from Councils, Catechims, and other sources, will be available for review online. He wants to know if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks,

Ultima

What a great Idea! And what a great way to “spread knowledge of the faith”! But I wonder what the purpose of the insert is? Is it written for a specific audience? Did your friend start it because there was an unmet need in the parish?

A friend of mine and I wanted to start an apologetics class at our church. We had all these grandiose plans for teaching logic and advanced theology, and Aquinas…etc. The very first night, we found out that the majority of people just wanted to learn about the basic teachings of the Church. Things like, Why do we believe what we believe about Mary? What does the Church actually teach about the Eucharist, heaven, hell, purgatory, confession, indulgences? Why do we have Sacred Tradition, where does it come from? Many of them told us that they were tired of having to apologize for being Catholic. That’s why they wanted to come to an Apologetics class. Over time, the class has actually become an Adult Faith Formation class. A kind of CCE for Adults…with an apologetics slant. When we have a great idea, sometimes we just never know where the Holy Spirit will lead us.

I personally would love it if we had an insert like this in our bulletin. If I were writing this for a parish …I would look first at the audience that I was writing to…what is it that they need? What are they “spiritually” hungry for?? It just seems like more people will read it if it meets their needs.

The other thing that I would caution, is that many older people don’t have access to or knowledge about computers. Many of them are learning, but many still are not computer literate. I would suggest that your friend include some non-internet references to the Catechism and other resources.

Just my two cents,

CC
[SIGN]Papist since 1992![/SIGN]

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Through infused knowledge, Jesus, as man, knew at once all that could be known, firstly, by the power of the human intellect, and secondly through revelation. Through the beatific vision of God, Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect of the Word of God. Therefore, even in his human intellect, but not by virtue of His human intellect, Jesus Christ knew all things. As such, from the moment of His Incarnation, Jesus, as man, knew He was God. END

Hi Ultima,

I see a problem in the above. I do not think it correct to assert that “Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect.”

The problem is that a created finite intellect, even one possessing the Beatific Vision, must still be limited. The Divine Intellect, being infinite, is unlimited.

I think that last bit needs some editing. Let me know what you think, and if I can assist.

VC

 

[revert_jen]

The *nature *of a thing tells us what it is; the person tells us who it is. Since Jesus has two natures – Divine and human - “what” Jesus is, is God and man; but since He is only one Person – a Divine Person - “who” He is, is God. Since actions are performed by a Person, not by a nature; and since Jesus is a Divine Person, it follows that all the actions performed by Jesus were Divine actions, of infinite value.

What is said here is correct, but I think it is important for understanding the salvfic nature of Jesus’ actions to say also that his actions were human actions as well. What I mean is, the action was willed by Jesus who is a divine person. But because of the hypostatic union, both human and divine natures performed the actions. Because He is Divine, His death was worthy as reparation for all of the sins of the human race. Because He is also human, that reparation can be applied to us. The actions are still of infinite value, but I think their connection to Christ’s humanity is important to keep in mind, not in terms of their value, but in terms of their effect.

At least that is how I understand St. Athanasius, but I am not a theologian.

–Jen

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

What a great Idea! And what a great way to “spread knowledge of the faith”! But I wonder what the purpose of the insert is? Is it written for a specific audience? Did your friend start it because there was an unmet need in the parish?

His original idea was to have an insert in the bulletin each week, or each month, that answers a common Protestant objection to the faith. He thought this would accomplish two things: 1.) it would give the Catholics more confidence in general by showing that there was a good answer for these objections, and 2.) It would probably spur the interest of some to learn more about the faith.

Regarding the audience. The goal is to have it placed in bulletins in many Churches in the diocese. He was concerned that the doctrine in the first bulletin might be a little too much for the average Catholic, but after further thought (and having other people read it), he thinks they should be able to follow. One of the reasons I posted it here was to get people’s comments on the content.

The other thing that I would caution, is that many older people don’t have access to or knowledge about computers. Many of them are learning, but many still are not computer literate. I would suggest that your friend include some non-internet references to the Catechism and other resources.

Good idea.

 

[Shin]

Hi Ultima,

I see a problem in the above. I do not think it correct to assert that “Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect.”

The problem is that a created finite intellect, even one possessing the Beatific Vision, must still be limited. The Divine Intellect, being infinite, is unlimited.

I think that last bit needs some editing. Let me know what you think, and if I can assist.

VC

Yes, I believe you are correct in this criticism.

This is a wonderful thread.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Hi Ultima,

I see a problem in the above. I do not think it correct to assert that “Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect.”

The problem is that a created finite intellect, even one possessing the Beatific Vision, must still be limited. The Divine Intellect, being infinite, is unlimited.

I think that last bit needs some editing. Let me know what you think, and if I can assist.

VC

Here’s a few quotes from St. Thomas.

St. Thomas: Whether by this imprinted, or infused knowledge, Christ knew all things? As was said above, it was fitting that the soul of Christ should be perfect by having each of its powers reduced to act. … Now both powers of Christ’s soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge. **And hence, by it the soul of Christ knew: - First, whatever can be known by force of a man’s active intellect, e.g. whatever pertains to human sciences; secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made known to man by Divine revelation…” **.

That quote tells what all Christ knew by virtue of his human intellect. The next tells what all Christ’s human intellect knew by way of the beatific vision.

St. Thomas: Whether Christ knew all things in the Word? “ I answer that, When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things in the Word, “all things” may be taken in two ways: First, properly, to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And in this way it must be said that the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word. For every created intellect knows in the Word, not all simply, but so many more things the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself. **Now to Christ and to His dignity all things to some extent belong, inasmuch as all things are subject to Him. Moreover, He has been appointed Judge of all by God, “because He is the Son of Man,” as is said Jn. 5:27; and therefore the soul of Christ knows in the Word all things existing in whatever time, and the thoughts of men, of which He is the Judge, so that what is said of Him (Jn. 2:25), **“For He knew what was in man,” can be understood not merely of the Divine knowledge, but also of His soul’s knowledge, which it had in the Word. Secondly, “all things” may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality, and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act. Now some of these are in the Divine power alone, and not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word. For this would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence. For every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do. Some, however, are not only in the power of God, but also in the power of the creature; and all of these the soul of Christ knows in the Word; for it comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature, and, consequently, its power and virtue, and all things that are in the power of the creature".

Regarding the second kind of knowledge. This is knowledge of what is not, and never will be. It is merely in potentiality. St. Thomas says that Christ (meaning his human intellect) does not know what is merely in potentiality and will never be reduced to act. But what is only in potentiality and will never be reduced to act does not exists and never will exist. Therefore, since Christ knows all *that will ever be *(in act) my friend thought it was correct to say that Christ knew all things. If you read the following link to the Summa, St. Thomas agrees with this.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP010.html

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Therefore, since Christ knows all *that will ever be *(in act) my friend thought it was correct to say that Christ knew all things. If you read the following link to the Summa, St. Thomas agrees with this.

Actually, I had this specifically in mind.

The problem is that the Divine Intellect knows not only all that was, is, or will be but also all that is possible. But a human intellect cannot know all that is possible. Therefore Christ does not know all things in his Human intellect that He knows in His Divine intellect.

It is an important distinction. The original post mentions that Christ in His human intellect “knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect”, which seems false. Also, the bit before this which states that Christ "knew at once all that could be known "might use some editing, since it could mean “all that there is to know”, which would be false for the same reason as above.

For support of this position see:

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited. . .(CCC 472)

and

“from the beginning knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.”

(Denzinger “Sources of Catholic Dogma” 2184 – the response of the Holy Office is that the above is “certain”.)

Both of these show the limit of the human intellect to only the past, present and future, and therefore not all that God knows in Himself.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Joannm]

I have written bulletin articles for several years. What I have discovered is that the average person reading the bulletin wants something brief and not too intellectual. I presently do a column that asks one question each week (often submitted by parishioners) and give a short one paragraph answer to the question. People have commented favorably on this format. Another person writes a full page catechesis and people have commented that it is too long and they don’t bother reading it. You have to know your audience. I recently have started writing another set of full length (one page artilces) on the Mass, but I make it more conversational, relate it to my audience’s experiences, and make it light, not too many “churchy” words, and easy for all to understand. People are telling me that they are looking forward to future articles because they are not too intellectual and make one point, not several.

I would suggest you focus on one of your questions each week.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Before responding, I just want to say that this is a great conversation and will certainly lead to greater clarity on this point.

Actually, I had this specifically in mind.

The problem is that the Divine Intellect knows not only all that was, is, or will be but also all that is possible. But a human intellect cannot know all that is possible. Therefore Christ does not know all thing in his Human intellect that He knows in His Divine intellect.

Yes, I agree. His human intellect does not know “all things” that are known in the Divine intellect. But the way St. Thomas dealt with it was by saying that “all things” can be understood in two ways; namely, all that has ever or will ever be, or all that could possibly be.

With this in mind, according to the reasoning of St. Thomas, it would be correct to say that Jesus knew all things, as long as “all things” is understood to be all that ever has been or will be. However, even though Jesus’s human intellect would know “all things”, in this sense, His human intellect would know less than the Word, because the Word would know “all things” according to the second meaning of the term - all that ever could be. I’ll see if he can find a way to phrase it so that it limits the knowledge to all that has been or will be, but he is limited on space.

It is an important distinction. The original post mentions that Christ in His human intellect “knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect”, which seems false.

Actually, it said this: *“Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect of the Word of God”, *which is not correct. Although it could be correct to say that Jesus’ human intellect knew “all things” (meaning all things that have been or will be), it is not correct to say that Jesus’ human intellect knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect, since the Divine intellect knew “all things” that could possibly be. I will tell him to re-phrase that part.

Also, the bit before this which states that Christ "knew at once all that could be known "might use some editing, since it could mean “all that there is to know”, which would be false for the same reason as above.

For support of this position see: and (Denzinger “Sources of Catholic Dogma” 2184 – the response of the Holy Office is that the above is “certain”.)

Both of these show the limit of the human intellect to only the past, present and future, and therefore not all that God knows in Himself.

What do you think?
VC

Great stuff. I just looked up the section you mentioned in Denzinger’s. That is a great section dealng with Christ’s knowledge. I think I mentioned earlier that my friend also has a longer version with many quotes that he will be putting on a website for reference. I’m going to recommend that he includes #2183, 2184, and 2185 from Denzingers in the longer version. I’ll also recommend that, if he doesn’t have room to clarify that the human intellect only knows all that will actually be, that he at least explain this in the longer version.

 

[ccolley2]

His original idea was to have an insert in the bulletin each week, or each month, that answers a common Protestant objection to the faith. He thought this would accomplish two things: 1.) it would give the Catholics more confidence in general by showing that there was a good answer for these objections, and 2.) It would probably spur the interest of some to learn more about the faith.

Regarding the audience. The goal is to have it placed in bulletins in many Churches in the diocese. He was concerned that the doctrine in the first bulletin might be a little too much for the average Catholic, but after further thought (and having other people read it), he thinks they should be able to follow. One of the reasons I posted it here was to get people’s comments on the content.

Awesome! I like that idea!
and Yes, I agree with 1) and 2)…I like it…
CC
[SIGN]Papist since 1992![/SIGN]

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I have written bulletin articles for several years. What I have discovered is that the average person reading the bulletin wants something brief and not too intellectual. I presently do a column that asks one question each week (often submitted by parishioners) and give a short one paragraph answer to the question. People have commented favorably on this format. Another person writes a full page catechesis and people have commented that it is too long and they don’t bother reading it. You have to know your audience. I recently have started writing another set of full length (one page artilces) on the Mass, but I make it more conversational, relate it to my audience’s experiences, and make it light, not too many “churchy” words, and easy for all to understand. People are telling me that they are looking forward to future articles because they are not too intellectual and make one point, not several.

I would suggest you focus on one of your questions each week.

Thanks

 

[CB_Catholic]

I have written bulletin articles for several years. What I have discovered is that the average person reading the bulletin wants something brief and not too intellectual. I presently do a column that asks one question each week (often submitted by parishioners) and give a short one paragraph answer to the question. People have commented favorably on this format. Another person writes a full page catechesis and people have commented that it is too long and they don’t bother reading it. You have to know your audience. I recently have started writing another set of full length (one page artilces) on the Mass, but I make it more conversational, relate it to my audience’s experiences, and make it light, not too many “churchy” words, and easy for all to understand. People are telling me that they are looking forward to future articles because they are not too intellectual and make one point, not several.

I would suggest you focus on one of your questions each week.

This is similar to what our Parochial Vicar does each week in our bulletin. People will ask questions and he answers one each week. If he needs to use a theological term, he will explain clearly what that term means. His approach is well received and his columns are very interesting and informative. I think it is a great way to educate the parishoners. Simple and effective. Sounds like you are doing a great job.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, I agree. His human intellect does not know “all things” that are known in the Divine intellect. But the way St. Thomas dealt with it was by saying that “all things” can be understood in two ways; namely, all that has ever or will ever be, or all that could possibly be.

Certainly. Like I said, I actually had this section of the Summa in mind when I wrote me first post. But I think it is important that Thomas makes the distinction explicit. The bulletin doesn’t, and leaves itself open to equivocation on the phrase “all things”. This could pose a real problem for your friend because the Catechism passage is easy to find “This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited. . .(CCC 472)” and a parishoner could either become confused or cause your friend (or his pastor) some embarrassment.
Ultima Ratio:

Actually, it said this: *“Jesus’ human intellect also knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect of the Word of God”, *which is not correct

Yes, I also didn’t think it was correct. (I just shortened the quote).
Ultima Ratio:

Although it could be correct to say that Jesus’ human intellect knew “all things” (meaning all things that have been or will be), it is not correct to say that Jesus’ human intellect knew all that was known by the Divine Intellect, since the Divine intellect knew “all things” that could possibly be. I will tell him to re-phrase that part.

I think it might help avoid some problems, and it will be clearer in the long run.

You might also note this passage in the Summa, which I think has a good turn of phrase:

God knows His Essence so much the more perfectly than the soul of Christ, as He comprehends it. And hence He knows all things, not merely whatever are in act at any time, which things He is said to know by knowledge of vision, but also what ever He Himself can do, which He is said to know by simple intelligence, as was shown in the FP, Question [14], Article [9]. Therefore the soul of Christ knows all things that God knows in Himself by the knowledge of vision, but not all that God knows in Himself by knowledge of simple intelligence; and thus in Himself God knows many more things than the soul of Christ.

Good luck on the project! It’s been a pleasure conversing with you.
VC