John
Salza Defends the Divine Person of Jesus Christ,
True God and True Man
(against
a Catholic!)
February
A.D. 2025
A Catechist recently asked a number of Catholic
apologists if they could summarize the atonement in a single, brief sentence,
that would be faithful to the mystery of the hypostatic union and the divine
and human natures of Christ. John Salza offered the following proposition:
“The
divine person, Jesus Christ, suffered in body and soul.”
(Note: St. Thomas also says Christ “suffered in body
and soul” in Tertia Pars, question 47.)
One Catholic apologist (who we shall call “Bill”) on
the email request took issue with Salza’s proposition, even calling it
“heresy.” After private correspondence
with Salza, who defended his proposition, the apologist compiled the following
Magisterial quotations in an effort to refute Salza’s proposition.
Following are those quotations along with Salza’s
replies, which demonstrate that the apologist has incorrectly conflated the
divine person (of Jesus Christ) with His divine nature, similar to what
Nestorius had done in the fifth century, when he refused to say that Mary was
the mother of the divine person (just as this apologist refuses to say that the
divine person could suffer and die).
We believe this exchange is fruitful to publish,
because it reminds us of the nuanced questions our Catholic forefathers had to
grapple with. It also should move us to reflect on the profound truth that the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, after assuming a human nature, remained a
divine person, and yet experienced what His human nature experienced, just as Our
Redeemer so willed, including birth, suffering and death. It is a most humbling
reflection as we prepare for Lent.
January 12, 2025
Bill: Each and every time official statements explain
the doctrine they indicate that the divine nature did not suffer and die, but
only the human nature suffered and died.
JS: That is exactly what I said in my
previous correspondence with you. Jesus, who is a divine person, suffered only
in His human nature, not in His divine nature. This is a straw man out of the
gate.
Bill: If John had said, “Jesus Christ suffered in body
and soul,” it would be acceptable. But when he prefaces that sentence with “the
divine person,” he implies certain things that are not true and is getting into
other theological territory that must be properly defined and explained, as you
will see below in the texts from the official teachings I have gathered.
JS: You can’t suggest or infer problematic
implications without actually articulating them. What is “implied that is not
true” about saying Jesus, the divine person, suffered and died? That statement
is true. We first judge statements by whether or not they are true.
Now, whether the true statement needs
further explanation for a particular purpose (e.g., a theological point), that
is a different matter. If someone knows Jesus is a divine person with a human nature,
he will have no problem with the statement and need no clarification. But if he
does not know Jesus Christ has a human nature, he will need further
explanation. If he equates the divine person with the divine nature, which is
what I believe Bill does, then he will object to the proposition. That doesn’t
mean the proposition is false.
Bill’s statement “Jesus Christ suffered in
body and soul” may also not be “acceptable” for one who does not know Christ
has two natures. It works both ways.
Bill: This is why when I have asked John whether it is
proper to say, as Karl Keating does, that “God died on the cross,” John,
instead of answering yes or no, gives me his qualifiers and syllogisms because deep
down he knows it is not proper to say “God died on the cross.”
JS: Now Bill claims he knows what I believe
“deep down”? That is quite presumptuous, and further, I know no such thing. I
also already answered this objection. Keating’s statement is correct because
Jesus is both God and man. I posed a syllogism for that purpose. Instead of
proving that either the Major or Minor of my syllogism was false (which Bill
cannot do, because they are both true), Bill instead attacks the Conclusion. It
doesn’t work that way. If the Major and Minor are true, the Conclusion must be
true.
Now, if we were teaching Catechism to the
unschooled, we would certainly want to provide more context for the Conclusion.
Even Bill’s statement “Jesus Christ suffered in body and soul” would have to be
explained. But the Conclusion of the syllogism is not false; it is true. Instead
of saying the Conclusion is false, Bill should instead say “the Conclusion is
erroneous if it means the divinity suffered” or “the Conclusion is correct when
understood to mean Christ suffered only in his humanity” – points that I also
have repeatedly stated.
Bill: Statements like that need definition and
contextualization, otherwise they confuse and bewilder. The Trinity and the
Incarnation are hard enough to understand when studied, much less when the
words are poorly chosen.
JS: This also applies to Bill’s proposition
“God did not die on the Cross” or even his statement “Jesus Christ suffered in
body and soul.” Statements like Bill’s also “need definition and
contextualization,” otherwise they “confuse and bewilder,” particularly one who
believes Jesus is God but is told “God did not die on the cross.” That
statement would confuse and bewilder many a Christian believer.
Bill: This is not the same as the Nestorian heresy
wherein Nestorius refused to say that Mary is the Mother of God. In that case,
God is not dying or suffering.
JS: To the contrary, Bill’s rejection of the
proposition that “Jesus Christ, the divine person, suffered in body and soul,”
is very similar to Nestorianism (which implicitly denied the hypostatic union,
in claiming Jesus the divine person was not born of a woman but only His human
nature), because it suggests that Jesus suffered only as a human person, or
that Jesus is not a divine person, or that only Jesus’ human nature redeemed us.
However, the Church told Nestorius that Jesus was one divine person with two
natures, and hence, just as that one divine person could have a mother, so that
one divine person could also suffer and die.
Likewise, I am telling Bill that Jesus
Christ is one divine person who suffered in body and soul, just like that one
divine person was born of a woman (which, of course, pertains to His human
nature). The Church’s reasoning against Nestorius only supports my case. The
Council of Ephesus rejected the Nestorian notion that the birth (and we can
also add “death”) of Jesus should not be applied to the divine person but only
His nature. The Council poses a real problem for Bill’s position. Of course,
birth and death are different events, but they both happen to persons with
human natures.
Bill, do you believe that Jesus, the divine
person, was born of a woman? If so, then you must believe that Jesus, the
divine person, also suffered and died.
Bill: In this case, if one says God died, then he is
challenged in light of other doctrines that say God cannot die. And unless the
teacher does so, completely, then he is misleading people.
JS: But using the exact same reasoning, if
one says God has a mother (which Nestorius refused to say), then he is also challenged
in light of other doctrines that say God cannot have a mother (because the
divinity has no origin). The same doctrinal error is at the root of both
denials. Those who say God cannot have a mother (like Nestorius) or God cannot
die (like Bill) commit the same error of failing to see Jesus as one divine
person with two natures, and that the divine person is the proper subject of
the two natures and their operations.
John Salza’s previous communication: “This all comes
from the early councils. Whoever says the true Lord and God was not crucified
in the flesh and is not one of the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema.”
Bill: As if I don’t read the early councils? No one here,
especially me, is saying that Jesus was not true Lord and God or that Jesus
Christ was not crucified in the flesh.
JS: Then you agree that Our Lord and God Jesus
Christ, the divine person, was crucified in the flesh and thus suffered in soul
and body. Correct? If so, then you agree with me.
John Salza’s previous communication: “Constantinople
II, 553, inter alia.”
“Those who equate the divine nature with the divine
person fall into this anathematized error.
Bill: Indeed, since that is an error, but I’m not
doing that. You are making it look like I do that, otherwise called a straw man.
JS: But you are conflating the divine nature
with the divine person every time you say the divine person did not suffer and
die because divinity cannot suffer, just like Nestorius said the divine person
could not be born of a woman because divinity has no origin. You say you are
not doing that, but that is precisely what you are doing. The divine person, who
has two natures, is not the same thing as the divine nature itself.
Bill:
But “attributing” is not the same thing as the divine person actually dying and
suffering. We “attribute” it to his divine person because there is only one
person, not two. We can’t attribute it to a person who doesn’t exist.
JS: I mean it as the same thing, Bill. Attributing the divine and
human natures to the divine person as its proper subject means that the divine
person actually was born of a woman, performed miracles, suffered, died,
and rose from the dead. Are you saying the divine person, Jesus Christ, did not
have a mother, or perform miracles, or suffer, die and rise again? Or do you
say, like Nestorius, that only Jesus’ human nature has a mother? Which one is
it, Bill? Did Jesus the divine person have a mother, or only Jesus’ human
nature? Because if Jesus, the divine person, was born of a woman, then He also
suffered, died, was buried, and rose from the dead.
You also seem to be under the impression
(although I could be wrong) that “death” means “cease to exist,” and hence
because God cannot cease to exist, God cannot die. But as you actually know,
“death” only means the soul separating from the body. Because the divine
person, Jesus Christ, had a human nature, He experienced death because His soul
separated from His Body. But He did not cease to exist.
Bill: To identify that one person, Jesus Christ, we
speak of his divine person because God would have it that there is not two
persons: a divine person and a human person, but only one person, and that one
person has to be divine. After that, many distinctions are required, which the
other official Church statements make, especially when we get into the area of
suffering and death.
JS: If the divine person has a human nature,
then the divine person experiences what His human nature experiences, which
includes birth (contra Nestorianism), and death (which means Jesus’ soul left
his body, which is an operation of the human nature). Again, the divine person,
Jesus Christ, has a body and soul, and that divine person experienced death
when His soul left His body. It is that simple.
Bill: Let’s look at Canon 3 of Constantinople II
Can. 3. If anyone says that one [person] is the Word
of God who performed miracles, and another the Christ who suffered,
-this is obviously anathema since it is claiming that
there are two persons.
Can 3: or says that God the Word was with Christ when
He was born of a woman,
-again, wrong because the Word and Christ are the
same.
Can 3: or was with Him as one in another, but not that
the same [person] is our Lord Jesus Christ,
-again, wrong because of the same false distinction.
Can 3: the Word
of God, incarnate and made man, and that both the miracles and the sufferings
which He voluntarily endured in the flesh were of the same person, let such a
one be anathema.
-again, since there is one person, there cannot be
another person. A good example of what Canon 3 is pointing to is the problem of
Theodore who, according to Canon 4, said that one person was God the Word, and
another person was the Christ.
JS: Who said Christ was more than one
person? Not me. The problem is not recognizing that, by virtue of the
hypostatic union, the divine person assumed a human nature without ceasing to
be a divine person. Now, the divine person experiences what the human nature
experiences, while the divine nature does not (because the divine nature is
impassible). Our Lady gave birth not just to a human nature, but to a divine
person who assumed a human nature. Because this divine person had a human
nature, the divine person could experience birth, suffering and death (in that
human nature).
Bill: The gist of these statements is that there is
only one person whose identity is Jesus Christ since there can only be one, not
two, persons of the same individual. If the discussion is left here, there is
no problem.
JS: Of course, I agree with all of this.
There is one divine person, who assumed a human nature while not ceasing to be
a divine person. As a result, this divine person was born of a woman, suffered,
died and rose from the dead.
Bill: It is similar to The Athanasian Creed Denz 40
Although he is God and man, yet he is not two, but he
is one Christ; one, however, not by the conversion of the Divinity into a human
body, but by the assumption of humanity in the Godhead; one absolutely not by
confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul
and body are one man, so God and man are one Christ.
In other words, I am not two people. I am one person
with a body and a soul. But this begs the question of whether my body will
experience things that my soul does not.
The answer is yes. Since the answer is yes, then the
analogy holds both ways and thus says that the human nature of Christ will
experience things that the divine nature does not, and those experiences are
suffering and death.
JS: I completely agree. This is a straw man
because I never said the divine nature experiences death. Only someone who
equates the divine nature with the divine person would argue this. To the
contrary, I said the divine nature does not experience death, but only the
human nature. Note also that the Creed says the human nature was assumed into
the Godhead “by unity of person.” That is because both natures co-exist, with
no admixture, in one person, who is divine (“into the Godhead”). What this
divine person experiences in his human nature is experienced by the
divine person Himself, including birth, death, and resurrection, but not
the divine nature, which is impassible and unchangeable. The divine person is
no longer a pure spirit (pre-Incarnation) but a person with both a divine and
human nature. Hence, the divine person, Jesus Christ, suffered in His soul and
body (in His human nature).
Bill: But when someone then makes a syllogism and
says: A) Jesus is God; B) Jesus died on the cross; C) “God died on the cross,” this
is not correct. Premise A is incomplete, and an incomplete premise is as good
as false. So if premise A is false by incompletion, the Conclusion C cannot be
correct. So, for example, we find statements like the ones in…
JS: Your claim begs the question, incomplete
for what? The statement “Jesus is God” is true, just as the statement “Jesus is
man” is true. Any single syllogism about Jesus Christ is going to be incomplete
if you are looking for an exhaustive Christological presentation. But that
doesn’t make the syllogism false. If Jesus is God, then Premise A is correct.
It is not “false by incompletion.” The Premise is either true or false. There
may be other things one can say to clarify particular points, but the Premise
is correct. Jesus is God. Also, your statement “God did not die on the cross”
would be considered at least equally “incomplete” by your own reasoning, and
quite scandalous to those who believe Jesus is Our Lord and God who suffered,
died and was buried.
You have even described my proposition “the
divine person suffered in body and soul” (the same thing St. Thomas Aquinas,
the Universal Doctor, says) as “heresy.” Only a person who equated the divine
nature with the divine person would make such an absurd claim (and he himself
would be in grave error, if not heresy himself).
Bill: The Council of Toledo, Denz 26 and 27:
26 6. If anyone says and [or] believes, that the Son
of God, as God, suffered [in place of this: that Christ cannot be born], let
him be anathema.
27 7. If anyone says and [or] believes that the man
Jesus Christ was a man incapable of suffering [in place of this: the divine
nature of Christ was changeable or capable of suffering], let him be anathema.
Thus one cannot say that God suffered or died; or say
that Christ could not suffer.
JS: I agree. I never said “God suffered as
God.” I specifically disclaimed this proposition. Rather, I said “the divine
person Jesus Christ suffered in body and soul.” The divine person suffered
because He (as the God-man) has a human nature. God as God has only a divine
nature.
--------------------------
Bill: JOHN II 533-535. "One of the Trinity
Suffered," and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. From epistle
(3) "Oem quidem" to the senators of Constantinople, March, 534. (Denz
201)
[Since] Justinian the Emperor, our
son, as you have learned from the 201 tenor of his epistle, has signified that
arguments have arisen with regard to these three questions, whether one of the
Trinity can be called Christ and our God, that is, one holy person of the three
persons of the Holy Trinity; whether the God Christ incapable of suffering
because of deity endured [suffering in] the flesh; whether properly and
truly the Mother of God and the Mother of God's Word become incarnate from her
the Mother of our Lord God Christ ought to be called Mary ever Virgin. In these
matters we have recognized the Catholic faith of the Emperor, and we show that
this is clearly so from the examples of the prophets, and of the Apostles, or
of the Fathers. For in these examples we clearly point out that one of the Holy
Trinity is Christ, that is, one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity is a
holy person or substance, which the Greeks call hupostatis [various
witnesses are brought forward, as Gen. 3:22; I Cor. 8:6; the Nicene Creed;
Proclus' letter to the Westerners, etc.]; but let us confirm by these examples
that God truly endured in the flesh [Deut. 28:66; John 14:6; Matt. 3:8; Acts
3:15: 20,28; I Cor. 2:8; Cyrilli anath. 12; LEO ad Flavium etc.].
Bill: The paragraph
states as a fact that “God Christ is incapable of suffering,”
JS: No it
doesn’t Bill; it is saying just the opposite. Read it carefully. The Pope is
addressing and rejecting the proposition that “God Christ is incapable
of suffering.”
Bill: but did suffer in
the flesh, which necessarily means he did not suffer in his divine nature.
JS: Bill, who
does the Pope say “suffered in the flesh”? Answer: “God”! Read the last
line. The Pope was refuting those who said Christ couldn’t suffer because of
His deity. And of course He does not suffer in His divine nature.
Again, Pope
John II only helps me. He is addressing “arguments that have arisen,” including
the argument that God did not suffer because of His deity, and the Pope rejects
this proposition (evidently folks were equating the divine nature/deity with
the divine person). The Pope instead says precisely what I say, that “God
suffered in the flesh,” which is the same thing as saying “the divine person
suffered in the flesh (body and soul).” You have just confirmed my proposition.
In fact, what Pope John II says is even more “unacceptable” according to your
reasoning, because saying “God” suffered can be interpreted to refer to the
divinity alone, while my use of “the divine person” of Jesus Christ also presupposes
His human nature. What Pope John II said is even more scandalous, humanly speaking.
The rest is a
straw man, because I never said God suffered in His divinity, only in His human
nature.
Bill: The clause, “endured in the flesh,” at least
based on the scripture passages used [Deut. 28:66; John 14:6; Matt. 3:8; Acts
3:15: 20,28; I Cor. 2:8], is referring to the fact that the second person of
the Trinity became a real man (God-man) in Jesus Christ, not that the divine can
suffer.
JS: Exactly what I have been saying all
along. Jesus Christ, the divine person, suffered in the flesh. The divine
nature did not. Only those who equate the divine nature with divine person
would accuse me (and the Church) of error on this point.
---------------------
Bill: The above quote also cites Cyrilli anath. 12. According
to one commentary of Cyril (of Alexandria) anathemas against Nestorius:
“Some of the Anathemas have to do with predication.
Both divine and human attributes are to be referred to the same Christ (4). The
divine Word really suffered and died (12). St. Cyril later allowed that it
was lawful to distinguish between statements concerning the human nature and
those concerning the divine.”
So, even Cyril changed his mind on this issue. On the
one hand he said that the divine Word really suffered and died. On the other
hand he said one could distinguish between what the human nature experienced
and what the divine experienced.
JS: Which is precisely what I have been
doing. I said the divine person suffered in His human nature, and not in His
divine nature.
Bill: There is then given an important note on Cyril’s
anathemas, which would obviously include Anathema 12:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/anathemas-cyril
Subsequent History. At
the Council of ephesus in 431 approval was given to Cyril's letter to Nestorius
(no. 4 in collected letters; Patrologia Graeca 77:44–49), and
this was accepted as the authentic interpretation of Nicaea I. But the other
letter of Cyril (no. 17; Patrologia Graeca 77:105–121) to
which the 12 Anathemas were appended did not receive such formal recognition.
Later, at the time of Pope Vigilius, there was to be confusion as to which of
the letters was solemnly approved. As Galtier has shown, the Anathemas are not
to be taken as the solemn dogmatic teaching of the Council of Ephesus, although
they are to be found in the acts of the Council. This is not to say that one
can disregard the Anathemas. The first one with its defense of Theotokos was
certainly accepted, and even the others reflect the mind of the Council. But
the true meaning of these propositions was clouded by the lack of
terminological precision; and when monophysitism arose, the Church defended its
position without recourse to the Anathemas. Cyril himself recognized their
inadequacy in the discussions after Ephesus; and when union was achieved in 433
with John of Antioch, there was no mention of them. The contention that
Monophysitism was a natural outcome of Cyril's teaching cannot be maintained;
and if certain less happy terms of his were dropped at Chalcedon, it is
incorrect to say that there was an abandonment of his theology. (ibid).
As for the citation to
Leo’s Ad Flavium given by Pope John II above, here is what Leo says on
the suffering of Christ: (https://patristica.net/451_tomus&e&e&en):
“So the proper character of both
natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was
taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off
the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could
suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one
and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could
both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death.”
JS: This is absolutely
correct. The nature that could suffer was united to an invulnerable nature “in
a single person,” and it is that single person, Jesus Christ, who suffered
death on the cross. We are redeemed by this divine person, Jesus Christ, and not
just by His human or divine nature. We
are redeemed by the divine person, Jesus Christ, who suffered in body and soul
(in His human nature).
Bill: “The God who knew no suffering did
not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be
subject to the laws of death.”
JS: Agree. The God who
could not suffer before the Incarnation could now suffer by assuming a human
nature without ceasing to be God.
Bill: “…and again that the Son of God
is said to have been crucified and buried, since he suffered these things
not in the divinity itself whereby the Only-begotten is co-eternal and
consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of the human nature.
That is why in the creed, too, we all confess that the only-begotten Son of God
was crucified and was buried…”
JS: Agree. The Son of God
did not suffer in His divinity. The Son of God – the divine person – suffered
in His humanity (body and soul).
Bill: Pope Leo is also quoted by the Council of
Constantinople III:
Council of Constantinople III, (Denz 292)
But we glorify two natural operations
indivisibly, inconvertibly, unconfusedly, inseparably in our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation,
according to Leo the divine preacher who very clearly asserts: "For
each form does what is proper to itself with the mutual participation of the
other, that is, the Word doing what is of the Word and the flesh accomplishing
what is of the flesh" [see n. 144]. For at no time shall we grant one
natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created,
we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast
down to a place begetting creatures. For of one and the same, we recognize the
miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other of these natures,
from which He is, and in which He has to be, as the admirable Cyril says.
[NB the remarks about Cyril from encyclopedia.com] Therefore we, maintaining
completely an unconfused and undivided (opinion), in a brief statement set
forth all: that we, believing that He is one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord
Jesus Christ our true God, and after the incarnation, assert that His two
natures radiate in His one substance, in which His miracles and His sufferings,
through all His ordained life, not through phantasy but truly He has shown, on
account of the natural difference which is recognized in the same single
substance, while with the mutual participation of the other, each nature
indivisibly and without confusion, willed and performed its own works;
according to this plan we confess two natural wills, and operations, concurring
mutually in Him for the salvation of the human race.
In light of all the other statements the Church has
made, and will make (below), it appears that Constantinople’s sentence, “we
recognize the miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other
of these natures,” is using the work of “miracle” as done by the divine
nature and the “suffering” as done by the
human nature.
JS: The council is referring to the divine
and human “operations” of the one divine person or substance, Jesus Christ, who
suffered in His human nature and performed miracles in His divine nature. This is
completely consistent with my proposition. I have always maintained that the
divine person, Jesus Christ, suffered only in His human nature.
------------------------------
Bill: This council will give further evidence that the
above interpretation is correct:
ST. NICHOLAS I 858-867, ROMAN COUNCIL 860 AND 863,
Primacy, the Passion of Christ, Baptism 1
Chap. 7. Truly indeed we must believe and in every way
profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Son of God, suffered the passion
of the Cross only according to the flesh; in the Godhead however, he
remained impassible, as the apostolic authority teaches and the doctrine of the
Holy Fathers most clearly shows. (Denz 327)
This is the exact distinction I have been making.
Since it says, “only according to the flesh,” the word “only” necessarily
implies that the opposite is not allowed, that is, “not according to the
divine,” since the divine is impassible.
JS: No, Bill, this is exactly what I have
been saying, not what you have been saying. You have been saying that the
divine person, Jesus Christ, did not suffer in body and soul. I have been
saying Jesus did not suffer in His divine nature. Those are two completely
different propositions. I have said that
the Son of God suffered only in His human nature, not in His divine nature. This
is further proof that you conflate the divine nature or deity with the divine
person who has a human nature.
As the Athanasian Creed says, there is a
distinction between “the Godhead” (which does not suffer) and the humanity (which
does suffer) that the Godhead “assumed” in the hypostasis or Person of Jesus
Christ. Because this divine person (the Son of God) now has a human nature, He is
capable of suffering and death (which happened when Christ’s soul left His
body), just as He was capable of being born of a woman (contra Nestorius).
--------------------------
Bill: ST. LEO IX, Symbol of faith 2, From the epistle
"Congratulamur vehementer" to Peter, Bishop of Antioch, April 13,
1053] (Denz 344)
“…having two wills and operations,
true God and true man, individual in each nature and perfect, not having
suffered a fusion and division, not adopted or phantastical, the one and only
God, the Son of God in two natures, but in the singleness of one person,
incapable of suffering and immortal in divinity; but in humanity for us and for
our salvation suffered in the true passion of the body and was buried, and
arose from the dead on the third day in the true resurrection of the body.
I
don’t know how much clearer it could be. All the elements are there: 1)
singleness of one person; 2) impassible divinity; 3) passible humanity.
JS: Yes, I agree, it is crystal clear and reiterates my proposition
precisely: “in the singleness of one person…he suffered in the true passion of
the body.” In other words, one single divine person (the Son of God who has two
natures), suffered in body and soul, just as I stated. It can’t get much
clearer: (1) one divine person; (2) impassible divinity; (3) passible humanity.
Once again, a Pope confirms my proposition. Only one who conflates the divine
person with the divine nature would object.
--------------------------------
Bill: Below is the same kind of statement, but this
time 200 years later at an ecumenical council:
GREGORY X 1271-1276, COUNCIL OF LYONS II 1274, Ecumenical
XIV (concerning the union of the Greeks):
“but the one and only Son of God, in two and from two
natures, that is divine and human, in the singleness of one person
impassible and immortal in divinity, but in humanity for us and for our
salvation having suffered in the true passion of the flesh, died, and was
buried, descended to hell, and on the third day arose again from the dead in
the true resurrection of the flesh,” Denz 462
JS: Yep, same thing. In the “singleness of one
person” do we find the suffering humanity and the impassible divinity. Just
like I have been saying all along. But if you equate divine person with divine
nature, then you must reject that proposition, because according to that theory,
a divine person (=divine nature) cannot suffer. This is what Bill is doing. And
this is precisely why all the councils lead by saying the two natures are
united in the singleness of one person, to distinguish the one person from the
two natures and prevent one from equating the person with a single nature, or
saying there are two persons in Christ, or saying the divine person cannot be
born of a woman (Nestorius) or saying the divine person cannot suffer and die (Bill).
----------------------------
Bill: From the edict
"De Summa Trinitate et fide catholica" (Denz 480)
“…from which He Himself existing as true God in
Himself became true man, namely, a human body capable of suffering and
an intellective or rational soul, forming the body by Himself and essentially…”
JS: Yes, agree. That divine person assumed a
human nature, and is now “capable of suffering” in a “human body.”
--------------------
Bill:
Council of Florence, Denz. 708-709
“…God and man, Son of God and Son of
man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father according
to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity, passible and
temporal from the condition of assumed humanity. It firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that the Son of God in the assumed humanity was truly
born of the Virgin, truly suffered, truly died and was buried, truly rose again
from the dead…”
JS: Again, the Son of God
is a divine person, purely spiritual before the Incarnation, but now, having
assumed a human nature in the Incarnation, “truly suffered, died, was buried,
and rose from the dead.” The divine person suffered in His human nature, body
and soul.
----------------------------
Bill: (Denz) 1463 Chalcedon [see n. 148],
“…fourth in order, and I profess that
which was defined against Eutyches and Dioscorus, both of execrable memory,
that the one and same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was perfect in
divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man consisting of rational
soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in regard to His divinity, and
consubstantial with us in regard to His humanity, in all things similar to us,
without sin; that before time He was born of the Father according to divinity,
but that in these latter days the same One, for us and for our salvation, was
born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to humanity, and that the one
same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten must be recognized in the two natures
without confusion, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, never removing the
difference of the natures because of their union, and preserving the peculiar
character of each nature joined in one Person and substance; that this same
Lord is not separated and divided into two persons, but is one and the same Son
and Only-begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ: likewise that the
divinity of our same Lord Jesus Christ, according to which He is consubstantial
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is impassible and immortal; moreover, the
same Lord was crucified and died only in the flesh,
Bill: So here a question arises as to whether there is
any distinction between “the divinity of our same Lord Jesus” as opposed to the
“divine nature” or our Lord Jesus. The “divinity” was possessed before Jesus
became man, but was a “divine nature” after he became man. Does “nature” come
into play only because the divine will be united to the human? Is “divinity”
the same as “divine nature” or not?
JS: I disagree with saying the “divinity”
was a “divine nature” “after” (your words) Christ became man, because the
divinity did not change or become something other than what it always was, is
and shall be. There is no “before” or “after” with the divinity. The divinity
assumed a human nature, while remaining the same divinity, which is also what I
have stated several times. The divinity
and divine nature are necessarily the same thing. What changed is not the
divinity, but the humanity, which was assumed by the Second Person of the
Trinity.
Bill: This makes us wonder why the word “person” can
be used. If we put the label “person” on to Christ, does that change him in
anyway? In other words, we have one being that has two distinct natures, and
each nature acts in accord with its own nature, not confused or mixed. So does
putting the label Person on to the two natures make him something other than
two natures? No. So what is it about “person” that allows us to say the person
died or the person did miracles?
JS: I would not say calling Christ a
“person” is a “label” or creates any controversy, because that is what He is
from all eternity: He is the second “person” of the Blessed Trinity. Indeed,
that is where you start: for all eternity, the Blessed Trinity consists of the
three divine “persons.” Because the second divine person of the Blessed Trinity
assumed a human nature, He does not cease to be a “person.” This is also why we
refer to Jesus as a divine person; because He is the eternal second person of
the Trinity who assumed a human nature. Thus, he is not a human person. The
Catechism of St. Pius X makes that clear. Accordingly, it is most correct to
call Jesus a divine person, which is why I use it in my proposition.
Bill: Constantinople continues:
“…as was also defined in the said Synod and in the
letter of St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff [cf. n. 143 f.], by whose mouth, the
Fathers in the same Synod declared that Blessed Peter the Apostle spoke, and by
this definition there is condemned also that impious heresy of those who,
when the Trisagion transmitted by the angels was being sung in the
aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon: "Holy God, strong God, immortal God,
have mercy on us," added these words: "Who was crucified for
us," and thereby asserted that the divine nature of the three Persons
was passible and mortal.”
JS: Agree. No one here ever said that the
divine nature was crucified or suffered, only that the divine person suffered
in His human nature. We also do not say the human person suffered in His human
nature, because Jesus is not a human person. He is a divine person, as the
constant tradition of the Church tells us, and as you have also agreed.
Bill: I think this is
significant because it tells us that we need to watch how we say things. What
was wrong for them to say is, “The immortal God…who was crucified for us.” This
is precisely why Karl Keating cannot say “God died on the cross.” And I also
think it is why John cannot say, “the divine Jesus Christ suffered and died in
his body and soul,” since it implies that the divine dimension of Christ had a
body and soul, and/or that the divine dimension is passible.
JS: It would
only imply that for one who equates the divine nature with the divine person,
which is what I maintain you are doing, but not for one who understands that
the divine person is distinct from the divine nature, and suffers only in His
human nature.
Indeed, if Pope
John II can say “God suffered in the flesh,” then I can say “the divine person
Jesus Christ suffered in soul and body.” In fact, I would submit that my
statement is more nuanced and theologically complete. On the other hand,
because Bill rejects the statement “God died on the cross,” he must also reject
Pope John II’s Magisterial statement “God suffered in the flesh.” Again, this
error is rooted in equating the divine person with the divine nature.
Bill: In contrast, above
Constantinople made it clear in saying:
a) “the divinity of our
same Lord Jesus Christ…is impassible and immortal”
and then
b) “the same Lord was
crucified and died only in the flesh.”
JS: Agree. And
that same Lord is not “the divinity” or “divine nature,” but rather the divine
person, Jesus Christ, with a human nature and a divine nature. Once you
properly distinguish between the divinity or divine nature, and the singleness
of the divine person, your issues go away.
Bill: Council of Florence, Denz, 708):
“It believes, professes, and proclaims that one person
of the Trinity, true God, Son of God born from the Father, consubstantial and
coeternal with the Father, in the plenitude of time which the inscrutable depth
of divine counsel has disposed for the salvation of the human race, assumed
true and complete human nature from the immaculate womb of the Virgin Mary, and
joined with itself in the unity of person, with such unity that whatever is of
God there, is not separated from man, and whatever is of man, is not divided
from the Godhead; He is one and the same undivided, both natures, God and man,
remaining in their own peculiar properties, God and man, Son of God and Son of
man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father
according to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity,
passible and temporal from the condition of assumed humanity.”
Bill: Just a reiteration of previous teaching, but
here we have the terms “divinity” and “nature of divinity.” Are these precisely
the same or do they have a difference? I mean, is it necessary to use the word
“nature” when describing Christ’s divinity, since “nature” appears to describe
a thing or quality rather than a person. Likewise, the phrase “assumed
humanity” as opposed to just “humanity” raises a question since “assumed”
humanity almost appears as if Jesus just slips on a coat, as it were. But humanity
is composed of body and soul, which make up a person. A person is not just
“humanity” that can be slipped on, so to speak. A person has a personality. So
why is the human nature of Christ not said to be a person? Granted, we start
from the place that Christ can’t be two persons, so we have the divine person
of Christ who exists after we somehow eliminate the human person so that there
is only one person, so that we are left with a human nature and not a human
person. I accept it as the Catholic faith, which is the mystery of the hypostatic
union. But still, we need to know what we are saying, which is that the
“person” is eliminated from the human nature in Jesus Christ, so that Jesus
only is one person, the divine person. What is it that eliminates the “person”
from the human nature? Neither divine revelation nor the church tells us. All
Chalcedon could tell us is that the divine and human cannot be mixed, confused,
separated or divided (negatives instead of positives).
JS: The hypostatic union is a mystery indeed,
but it means that there is a union of the human and divine natures in the
singleness of one divine person, such that the divine person experiences what
His human nature experiences (e.g, birth, suffering, death and resurrection).
I make sense of your question by
understanding that the second divine person of the Blessed Trinity, in becoming
man (assuming a human nature) in the womb of the Virgin, did not cease to be
the second divine person of the Trinity, which would be impossible (God cannot
cease to be Who He is). Hence, He could not become a human person, even through
the Incarnation; He remains what He is, a divine person, only now, with a human
nature (thus, we must now distinguish between the human nature and divine
nature or divinity, in this one divine person). This is why we cannot say Jesus
is a human person, and also why we can say the divine Person suffered, died and
rose again (because the human nature co-exists with the divine nature in the
singleness of the one divine person, as the Church teaches, and as my
proposition maintains).
Bill: I think a partial answer to this question of
what happens to the person of the human nature is answered by:
Denz 1465 Third
Council of Constantinople [see n. 289 fl.],
“…and I profess what was defined in it against the
Monothelites, that in our one same Lord, Jesus Christ, there are two natural
wills and two natural operations without division, change, separation, or
confusion, and that His human will is not contrary to, but subject to His
divine and omnipotent will.”
I know this doesn’t talk about the human person, only
human will, but it seems that somehow the divine person has to overtake or
eliminate the human person in order for the human person not to exist in
Christ. Whether this is correct or not, the church will have to decide.
The point about this accumulation of official
citations is that the church was very careful to explain herself about who and
what was suffering and dying, and I think we need to do the same, which starts
by not using expressions that either imply wrong doctrine or that cannot be
stated without the proper distinctions also stated.
JS: I appreciate you pulling these quotes
together (and I have studied them all, over many years). In summary: The Son of
God did not cease to be a divine person when He assumed a human nature in the
person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is a divine person with two natures, human and
divine. Having assumed a human nature, the divine person was born of a woman,
suffered, died and rose again. This is why we can and must say that Jesus
Christ, the divine person (not human person) was born of a woman, and suffered
in body and soul (in His human nature). The divine person (but not the divine
nature) experiences what His human nature experiences because of the hypostatic
union.
I reiterate what I
suspected before you sent your document, namely, that you are conflating
the divine nature with the divine person of Jesus Christ, who has two
natures, and thus experiences as a divine person what He
experiences in His human nature. Hence, the proposition "The divine
person, Jesus Christ, suffered in body and soul" is completely
traditional, consistent with all the Magisterial statements you provided,
contrary to your assertion that it is erroneous, if not heretical.
Bill: John, before I spend the time reading this, please allow me to correct you once again, and then perhaps you may want to redo your paper.
As I said before, I am not "conflating" the divine nature with the divine person. That proposition is exactly what I am fighting against. They divine and the human are two separate entities that are not to be confused and not to be mixed. I have said that repeatedly.
As such, your whole premise about what you think I believe is wrong. You are building a strawman of your own choosing.
Hence, since the two natures cannot be mixed and confused, it is my contention that you are wrong in saying that the divine nature experiences what the human nature experiences, and vice versa.
Hence the divine nature of Christ did not die on the cross. Only the human nature did.
And
hence it is wrong to say "the divine person suffered in body and
soul," since you are not making the proper distinctions. I can't find one
statement from the magisterium that says the "divine person suffered in
body and soul" or says the "God died on the cross," which was my
original contention.
JS: Bill,
you just proved my point again. You claim I cannot say "the divine
PERSON" suffered" because "the divine NATURE of Christ did
not die on the cross." That is a conflation of the divine person and the
divine nature. The divine PERSON can indeed suffer and die, because the divine
person has a HUMAN NATURE. But the divine NATURE cannot suffer and die. The
divine and human natures, although separate and distinct with no admixture,
coexist in ONE divine person, who experiences what His human nature experiences.
Only one who conflates the divine person with the divine nature would object to
the proposition that "the divine person Jesus Christ suffered." If
you go back and read all my texts, I repeatedly say the divine NATURE cannot
suffer and die, but the divine PERSON can.
This
is why Pope John II, who you misread, says "God suffered in the
flesh" (you actually wrongly claim the Pope rejected this proposition; he
didn't. He affirmed it). The rest of the Magisterial statements also support my
position that there is a distinction between the divine person of Jesus Christ,
who has two natures, and His divine nature; and that this divine person
experiences what His human nature experiences, namely, birth, suffering, death
and resurrection. If the divine person was born of a woman (contra Nestorius),
then the divine person also suffered and died (contra Bill).
You
seem to have a real blind spot on this. I hope you change your view after you
carefully read my replies.
Bill: John, if that is true, then why do we not find a
magisterial statement that says, "the divine person of Christ suffered and
died"? That is why I bothered to look up all the passages in Denzinger for
us. As you can see, there was no such statement. Each statement in doctrine was
careful to say that it was Christ's human nature that suffered and died.
Hence it appears to me after my research that you are making up your own definition of how the person relates to the nature, which appears to be the reason I can't find it anywhere.
As for Nestorius, he had a different problem. He was saying that the divine person could not take on a human nature and exist as such. Our issue is whether the divine person can suffer and die.
As for
John Paul II's statement, God suffered in the flesh, at least there is a
distinction to be found in the word "flesh," that is, God did not
suffer in his divine nature that has no flesh, but in his human nature that has
flesh. But you are saying something different when you say, "the divine
person suffered and died," since you make no provision for the flesh of
Christ in the formula.
JS: Bill, sorry, but you are stuck and are now trying to make
meaningless distinctions to get out from under your error.
You first incorrectly asserted that Pope John II rejected the proposition "God suffered in the flesh" and then used your erroneous interpretation to object to my proposition.
Now after I prove you wrong (that Pope John actually affirmed, not denied, the proposition), you are forced to accept the Pope's proposition, but come up with a new argument. The new argument, verbatim, is that there is a "distinction" in the word "flesh" in that God did not suffer in his divine nature that has no flesh, but in his human nature that has flesh (notice you don't admit you were wrong about your original assessment; and once again equate divine nature with divine person).
But using your exact same words and reasoning, there is also a distinction in the words "body and soul" in that God did not suffer in his divine nature that has no body and soul, but in his human nature that has a body and soul. Exactly! That is what I have been saying all along. So this argument only proves the truth of my proposition, not yours. All you need to do is see the distinction between divine person (with two natures) and divine nature, and your problem goes away.
In fact, Pope John II says much more than I do, because he says "God suffered" while I say "the divine person suffered." Pope John's statement is even more scandalous, humanly speaking, because when the Church uses "God," it usually is referring only to the divinity or the three divine persons. Using your reasoning that "God did not die on the cross," you should immediately object to Pope John's Magisterial statement "God suffered in the flesh" because the divine nature cannot suffer or die. Or do you believe that "God suffered on the cross" but "God did not die on the cross"? So God suffered but didn't die? Do you see your inconsistency?
So if you now accept that "God suffered in the flesh" (you are now forced to do so), then you must also accept that "the divine person suffered in the flesh, that is, in body and soul, which pertains to the flesh (human nature). That "God," of course, is the divine person, Jesus Christ. If not, then you are creating a distinction between "God" and "divine person" which doesn't exist. You are effectively saying that "God" has a human nature and thus can suffer in the flesh (the Pope's proposition), but the "divine person, Jesus Christ" who has a human nature, cannot suffer in the flesh (my proposition). That is completely absurd. "God suffered in the flesh" is the same as "the divine person suffered in the flesh, or in body and soul." As I said in my paper, my statement is actually more nuanced and theologically complete than that of Pope John, because while "God" could be interpreted to mean solely the divinity, the term "divine person" of Jesus Christ necessarily includes his humanity (which I learned in second grade).
You also make the strange claim that I "make no provision for the flesh of Christ" in my formula. What? Does not the body and soul pertain to Christ's human nature (the "flesh"). Of course it does. Christ suffered in body and soul because Christ, the divine person, has a human nature. Christ, the divine person, experienced death, because He experienced His soul separating from His body.
Again, your error is that whenever you see the word "divine person," you equate it with "divine nature." In your latest email you again say that the divine person cannot suffer because "God did not suffer in His divine nature that has no flesh." Notice that you immediately run to "divine nature" when you see "divine person." Thus, it is you who are creating the straw man, because I have repeatedly said that the divine nature cannot suffer, but the divine person can, just like the divine person can be born of a woman.
God
(Jesus Christ) suffered in the flesh (body and soul).
Bill2: Meaningless distinctions? Theology is all about
making the necessary distinctions, and this is where you are
failing.
JS2: Yes, and it's where you are failing, not me. You don't distinguish between divine nature and divine person. I have proven this over and over again. But you are begging the question, because you asserted but failed to make a distinction between "God" (suffering in the flesh) and the "divine person" (suffering in the flesh). In reality, the only distinction that could be made is that God can be interpreted to mean only the divinity, while divine person necessarily assumes the two natures, divine and human. This underscores that my proposition is actually more theologically complete than that of Pope John II. And yet you accept Pope John II's proposition (now that you know it's his) and reject mine.
JS1: You first incorrectly asserted that Pope John II rejected the proposition "God suffered in the flesh" and then used your erroneous interpretation to object to my proposition.
Now after I prove you wrong (that Pope John actually affirmed, not denied, the proposition), you are forced to accept the Pope's proposition, but come up with a new argument. The new argument, verbatim, is that there is a "distinction" in the word "flesh" in that God did not suffer in his divine nature that has no flesh, but in his human nature that has flesh (notice you don't admit you were wrong about your original assessment; and once again equate divine nature with divine person).
Bill2: Not really. I'm saying even if JP2 were right, at least he can claim he made a distinction. I see no distinction in your formula.
JS2:
Not really? First, I am using your words verbatim! Second, you have
not admitted you erred in your original assertion that John II rejected
the proposition "God suffered in the flesh" which is quite
problematic if we are really trying to be honest and seek the truth. Instead,
you blow it off and then assert a distinction between "God" and
"divine person" which only helps my case. Third, you fail to prove
how "God suffered in the flesh" is correct but "Jesus Christ
(God), the divine Person, suffered in the flesh (body and soul) is incorrect.
Of course, you cannot, because both propositions are true and mean the same
thing. Fourth, where did Pope John II make a distinction when he said
"God suffered in the flesh" that I don't make with "God suffered
in body and soul"? God = divine person = Jesus; and, flesh = body / soul.
As I said, my proposition is more theologically complete than that of Pope John
II, because God could be interpreted to refer solely to the divinity, while the
divine person of Jesus Christ cannot, because He has two natures.
Once again, I ask you - did God suffer in the flesh and die? Or did God just suffer in the flesh but not die? And if God suffered in the flesh, doesn't that mean God suffered in body and soul?
JS1: But using your exact same words and reasoning, there is also a distinction in the words "body and soul" in that God did not suffer in his divine nature that has no body and soul, but in his human nature that has a body and soul. Exactly! That is what I have been saying all along. So this argument only proves the truth of my proposition, not yours. All you need to do is see the distinction between divine person (with two natures) and divine nature, and your problem goes away.
Bill2: Not really. I can give a little grace to JP2 because he's not a logician. You claim to be a logician, and therefore more is expected of you. Unless your formula account for the fact that the divine, whether you emphasize his person or his nature, does not suffer, then your formula is a non-sequitur.
JS2: It is Pope John II, not John Paul II. First, my proposition "Jesus Christ, the divine person" does in fact account for both His human and divine natures (Pope John II's statement "God suffered" actually does not, and yet you are now forced to accept it). Second, we know that Jesus Christ, the divine person, suffered in His human nature, not His divine nature. We learned that in second grade as we prepared for our First Holy Communion. I am not sure why you didn't learn this or maybe forgot it. Third, where does Pope John II's statement "God suffered in the flesh" using your words, "account for the fact that the divine, whether you emphasize His person or nature, does not suffer"? It doesn't, and yet it is Magisterial statement from the Pope on the atonement, in fact, a statement that was made to refute your proposition that God didn't suffer and die. All of this stems from the fact that you fail to distinguish between the divine person and the divine nature, something that all the Magisterial statements do, as you provided.
JS1: In fact, Pope John II says much more than I do, because he says "God suffered" while I say "the divine person suffered." Pope John's statement is even more scandalous, humanly speaking, because when the Church uses "God," it usually is referring only to the divinity or the three divine persons. Using your reasoning that "God did not die on the cross," you should immediately object to Pope John's Magisterial statement "God suffered in the flesh" because the divine nature cannot suffer or die. Or do you believe that "God suffered on the cross" but "God did not die on the cross"? So God suffered but didn't die? Do you see your inconsistency?
Bill2: Again, I know what JP2 is trying to say. He is not trying to make a precise theological statement.
JS2: To the contrary, the Pope's statement "God suffered in the flesh" is, in fact, a precise theological statement, because it was intended to refute the proposition (your proposition, in fact!) that God did not suffer and die. So your attempt to diminish the Pope's statement proves too much for you.
Bill2: Just a statement in which we can then reason that he means God became a God-man and allowed the man nature to suffer and die.
JS2: Go a bit further, Bill, because you're getting closer. God, a divine person, assumed a human nature, without ceasing to be a divine person, and that divine person suffered in His human nature. In other words, the divine person, Jesus Christ, suffered in His human nature (in body and soul). Present that to any theologian worth his salt and he will agree without hesitation.
Bill2: When we are later talking about the IDENTITY of Christ, yes, we use Person as the best and only option.
JS2: No, that is not accurate, and that is why your Christology is so problematic. We don't call Christ a person because that is the "best option." We call Christ a person because the second PERSON of the Blessed Trinity assumed a human nature in Jesus Christ. We call Christ a divine person because that is what He is. It's not the "best option." It's the only option.
Bill2: But we don't confuse the identity with what nature of Christ suffered and died, since that is a different theological category, and where you fail to make the proper distinction.
JS2: To the contrary, by identifying Christ as a divine person who suffered in His human nature (in body and soul), we are actually underscoring the proper theological distinctions between the singleness of His person with two natures, and that the divine person suffered in his human nature (body and soul), and did not suffer in His divine nature.
God (Jesus Christ) suffered in the flesh (body and soul).
Bill2: That is all for now
JS2: Bill, frankly, this is one of most perplexing exchanges I have had with any apologist, ever. Jesus Christ suffering as a divine person in His human nature is basic stuff. But I tell you what. Feel free to submit our paper and all our exchanges to any credentialed theologian of your choosing (Fr. Harrison? Dr. Fastiggi?) and let them weigh in on this issue. If you don't believe me, maybe you will believe someone else.
It appears you haven't even read my replies to your paper, so I am done with this until you do, and if you want me to get a theologian to assess our positions, let me know. I know some solid Dominican theologians in Rome. (Bill did not respond to this offer.)
Bill:
You haven't proven your case. All you have done is assert that if the human
nature suffers and dies that means the divine person has suffered and died.
Whether that proposition is correct or not is what this discussion is about.
Claiming it is one thing; proving it is quite another.
As I told you (and you did not give an answer) there is nothing in the magisterial statements (eg., Denzinger) that uses your formula (the divine person suffered and died), and if I can't find it, I'm obligated not to use it.
If all you can find is a catechetical statement by Pius X, that's not going to cut it. All I find is that when the magisterium is talking about Christ's suffering and death (the citations from Denzinger I sent to you) it is always careful to say that it is the human nature that suffers and dies. Again, I find nothing that says the divine person suffers and dies.
You think you are right because you claim that there is something about the term "person" that allows you to make this connection, but you have neither defined "person" or shown where the magisterium itself makes that connection in regards to suffering and dying.
As I said, when it comes to identity, that is, WHO is Christ, yes, he is a person, not just a nature. But when the discussion switches from identity to whether God, divinity, suffers and dies, then the hierarchy of doctrine says that divinity, including the divinity of Christ's person, does not suffer and die.
Unless you can find a magisterial statement that explicitly says that Christ, as a divine person, suffers and dies, then I have no recourse but to deny your claim. That also means that your attempt to use logic or syllogisms to prove your point are not acceptable.
JS: Bill, I have already provided you the Magisterial statement
that you originally rejected but now are forced to accept:
"God suffered in the flesh."
You rejected this true teaching of the Magisterium, believing it was false when it was actually true, and you did so in order to refute my proposition (before I corrected you). This discredits your testimony against my proposition, and your entire testimony as a whole.
Because Jesus is God who is a divine person, and the flesh is composed of body and soul, this Magisterial statement is the equivalent of "Jesus (God) the divine person suffered in body and soul (the flesh)." Pope John II and I are saying the same thing. It is the same truth - God, the divine person with a human nature, died.
The burden is now on you to prove these statements are not equivalent. If you cannot do so, then you have no case. And you have not done so.
And I can also play the Magisterial statement game; show me a Magisterial statement that says "God did not die on the cross." Is there one? (We know God as God did not die; but Jesus as God did die; just like we know the divine nature did not die, but the divine person with a human nature did die).
Again, share our exchange with any theologian of your choosing and let's see who they agree with.
If I were questioning you in a trial, I would ask:
-Is
Jesus a divine person? Answer: Yes
-Did Jesus suffer in body and soul on the cross? Answer: Yes
I would then move for Summary Judgment in support of my proposition, and my motion would be granted.
Bill: I would then point out to
the judge that theology isn't made by syllogisms and then ask for the case to
be thrown out for lack of evidence.
JS:
Well, since you accused my proposition of being “heresy,” even though it
is the traditional teaching of the Faith, I won’t let you off that easily :) I
first ask you to read my replies to your paper and attempt to identify any
errors therein. I also renew my offer to submit our positions to any theologian
of your choice, to see who they agree with. Also, my position that the divine
person experiences what His human nature experiences (which is a doctrinal
truth of the hypostatic union, that the divine person is truly man) is found in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself, and even uses my terminology. Per
our prior statements:
JS1: “What happens to the divine Person of Jesus in His Human nature is attributed to His divine Person as its proper subject, not only His miracle but also His suffering and death. This is the Catholic Faith.”
Bill1: But “attributing” is not the same thing as the divine person actually dying and suffering. We “attribute” it to his divine person because there is only one person, not two. We can’t attribute it to a person who doesn’t exist.
JS2: “I mean it as the same thing, Bill. Attributing the divine and human natures to the divine person as its proper subject means that the divine person actually” born of a woman, performed miracles, suffered, died, and rose from the dead. Or do you maintain that the divine person was not born of a woman, but only His human nature was born of a woman, like Nestorius?”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the exact same thing (and even uses the same terminology) as I do:
Para 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.’ 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.”
Again, Salza: “What happens to the divine Person of Jesus in His Human nature is attributed to His divine Person as its proper subject, not only His miracle but also His suffering and death.”
The Church: “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.”
Hence, “the divine person, Jesus Christ, suffered in body and soul.” That is because the divine person is the subject of His human nature experiences. The divine person made the sufferings of His human nature "His own" (para 466 below).
You see, Bill, “even His suffering and death” is “attributed to His divine Person” and not just His “human nature” as you claim, which is why Pope John II can say “God suffered in the flesh” (a true proposition that you previously rejected until I showed you your error).
Again, Para 466: “Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.” The divine person is the subject of all the experiences of His human nature, including suffering and death.
Your objection to the “divine person” suffering is rooted in an implicit
rejection of the dogma of the hypostatic union. If according to the dogma, the
divine person, Jesus Christ, is fully man, then the divine person suffered in
His human nature. Again, I ask you to read my replies, and also renew the offer
to submit our positions to any theologian of your choosing, to see who they
agree with.
Bill: John,
You make some good
arguments, but I don’t think either you or Constantinople have solved the
problem. Not that Constantinople is wrong, but that it may not even be
addressing our particular problem.
First, the Catechism
says, “After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a
kind of personal subject.”
I agree. The human
nature is a nature, just like the divine nature is a nature.
In order to fix this,
Constantinople said “there is but one hypostasis, which is our Lord Jesus
Christ, one of the Trinity.”
The council goes on to
say that there is one person, Jesus Christ, not two persons – one divine person
and one human person.
Thus the council says
in Canon 3: “and that both the miracles and the sufferings which He voluntarily
endured in the flesh were of the same person, let such a one be anathema.”
I don’t have any
problem with that if that’s what “person” in the singular requires.
But, as I noted above,
this formulation does not solve the problem, and may not even be addressing our
problem.
Here’s why…
JS: Bill, I see where
you landed based on the use of logic, but logic doesn’t help us explain the
Trinity or hypostatic union. If it did, we would be in trouble. So logic is not
our standard. The Magisterium is. Further, we cannot reject the Magisterium’s
teaching that everything, including suffering and death, belong to the divine
person of Christ as the proper subject of His human nature, just because there
might not be anything explicit on the divine nature and the atonement. But does
there need to be? I don’t think so, since we know the divine nature cannot die,
and hence the divine person cannot die in His divine nature. He can only die in
His human nature, as the Church teaches us. Both are true, because the divine
person is both God and man.
Bill: Since we agree
the divine nature did not suffer and die, by the same token, using the same
logic as when we say the “person” suffered and died in his human nature, we can
also say that his “person,” in his divine nature, DID NOT suffer and die. And
that is because the divine nature cannot suffer and die.
JS: That is correct.
The divine person did not suffer and die in His divine nature, because the
divine nature does not have a body or soul. The divine person suffered and died
in His human nature, which has a body and soul. This simply means the divine
person experienced His soul separating from His body in His human nature. That
is why I said in my original proposition: “The divine person suffered in body
and soul.” My proposition is true and correct.
Again, the Church sees
no problem in holding that the divine person suffered and died in His human
nature, but not in His divine nature. Both are true, because the divine person
is both true God and true man.
Bill: In other words,
if you allow one, you have to allow the other. The divine person incorporates
both the human nature and the divine nature, but the formula of Constantinople
is only dealing with the human nature and says nothing about the divine nature.
JS: That Constantinople
does not address the divine nature in its formula does not negate its teaching
that the divine person suffered in His human nature, which is the teaching of
the Church as we also see in the Catechism and in my proposition. Similarly, that
Vatican I said nothing about the College of Bishops being a second subject of
universal jurisdiction did not negate its teaching that the Pope has universal
jurisdiction over the Church. Of course, other examples could be provided.
We don’t reject a
doctrinal proposition (that the divine person is the proper subject of all
experiences of the human nature, including death) just because it is silent
about a related doctrinal matter (His divine nature). We accept it as such,
just like we accept the Church’s teaching that three is one when it comes to
the Trinity (even though three is more than one). Being a logician won’t help
you understand the Trinity or the hypostatic union.
Bill: Again, if we
allow “the human nature to be attributed to the divine person,” then we have to
allow "the divine nature to be attributed to the divine person." But
since the divine nature cannot and did not suffer and die, then we can’t say
the divine person, which takes the attributes of the divine nature, suffered
and died.
JS: Yes I allow both,
and yes we can. We can say the divine person suffered and died in His human
nature (in body and soul), because according to the dogma of the hypostatic
union, the divine person is true man, and men suffer and die when they are
crucified. That is why my original proposition is true: “The divine person,
Jesus Christ, suffered in body and soul.” All this means is that the divine
person experienced the soul separating from the body in His human nature.
At the same time, we
can also say that the divine person did not die in His divine nature, because
according to that same dogma, the divine nature does not have a body or soul.
Both are true.
Whenever one refers to
the second Person of the Blessed Trinity (whether it is calling Him “the Word,”
or “the Son of God,” or “Jesus”), one is referring to the divine person that
has a human nature, or a divine person who is true man. That is
why we can and must say that this divine person was born of a woman, suffered,
died and rose again. We, of course, cannot say the same about the Father or
Holy Spirit. You can only say “the divine person did not suffer and die” in
reference to the Father and Holy Spirit, but not the Son, because the Son has a
human nature, and the other two divine persons do not. The proposition "the divine person suffered in His human
nature" is an affirmation of the dogma of the hypostatic union.
Bill: So it appears we
are in a theological dilemma, and I don’t know of any magisterial statement
that solves that dilemma, much less deals with it.
JS: I would not call it a dilemma because we are not forced to choose one over the other. The mystery of the hypostatic union says that the divine person of Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. Both are true. Hence, the divine person suffered and died in His human nature. As Scripture says, they “killed the Author of Life” (they didn’t just kill His human nature).
Bill: I appreciate your attempt to explain the "dilemma," but all you end up saying is that we both believe: 1) the divine person suffered in his human nature; 2) the divine person did not suffer in his divine nature.
Prior to this resent email, I didn't see you using "the divine person did not suffer in his divine nature," only "the divine nature did not suffer." The link that makes your position somewhat neutral is that the Person has attributed to it the divine nature as well as it does the human nature. So, in a sense, we are back to square one.
Be that as it may, the issue I still have with you is using the "the divine person suffered in his human nature" without explanation your qualification, which is what you did when you first introduced that statement on our chat line many weeks ago, and the same reason I objected to it. I objected because it gives the impression that "God" can suffer and die, and it's the same reason I would say that JP2's statement "God suffered in the flesh" is at the least quite sloppy, and Keating's statement, "God died on the cross," is even worse.
The bottom line for me is, we can't go around making glib or incomplete statements that imply God suffered and died. If we are going to enter into such a complicated theological arena then we need to tell all sides of the story or don't even bother. Without you adding that "the divine person did not suffer in his divine nature," then the story is incomplete. We cannot play word games, or "now you see me, now you don't" games with the hypostatic union.
In essence, the words "divine Person" did not solve the argument for you. It only showed you how complicated the issue really is. So, if you know it's complicated, then my advice is, don't try to make it simple by statements that only brush the surface, since they will give the uneducated the wrong impression.
JS: Bill, if you want to accuse me of
being "glib and incomplete," then you are also accusing the
Magisterium of the same, when it says that everything in Christ's human nature,
including suffering and death, is attributed to His divine person, without
mentioning anything about the divine nature, as you require. I will stick with
the Magisterium, and you should too.
Also, there is no difference between "the divine nature does not suffer" and "the divine person does not suffer in His divine nature," because the divine person experiences what His natures experience.
In fact, your statement "God did not die on the cross" is even more glib and incomplete, because it directly contracts both the Magisterium ("God suffered in the flesh") and Scripture itself (they "killed the Author of Life").
Wasn't the Author of Life who was killed a divine person? Of course He was.
I have made my case. Let the reader render
his verdict on whether or not the proposition “The divine person, Jesus Christ,
suffered in body and soul” is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
