Thomas Aquinas and the nature of the Christ Jesus

[Christian2]

Someone made the claim that Trinitarians deny that God is or has become "a human being" or a man. He asserts that Trinitarians believe Jesus had human nature, but that He is not a human being.

I believe Christian theology teaches that Jesus was indeed 100% fully man, but the Word/Son took on human nature, while still remaining divine.

This someone gave me an article to read:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... _oct05.asp

Part 1 Can We Call Christ a Human Being?

One must also understand that, for St. Thomas Aquinas, unless we are speaking about God, essence (substance, nature, or form) does not necessarily include being (esse or existence). When St. Thomas discusses the composition of a thing other than God, he says that "being is other than essence" [34] and "being must be other than its quiddity, nature, or form." [35] Even "the being of the intelligences must be in addition to their form" - except for the "pure being" which is "God." [36]

It has already been pointed out that, when the Church teaches that Jesus is "consubstantial with us according to the human nature," she means this in the sense of "essence," but not in the sense of "hypostasis" or "person." Jesus does not have a human "hypostasis" or human "person" in common with us. This is why St. Thomas says "That Christ must not be called a creature." [37] While Christ has a full human nature or essence, this essence does not include created being or a created hypostasis (person).

The Angelic Doctor of the Church says:

But in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person save that of God's Word, and this person is uncreated as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one cannot say without qualification: "Christ is a creature," although one may say it with an addition, so as to say a creature "so far as man" or "in His human nature. [38]

Someone might object and say that if Christ's human nature did not have created being then Christ took on less than what we are, for our human nature has created being. But, Pius XI quoted St. Thomas Aquinas in his Encyclical Letter, Lux Veritatis saying:

Personality belongs to the dignity and perfection of any being insofar as the dignity and perfection of any being require that it should have its own existence as is understood by the term person. It is, however, a greater dignity for anyone to exist in someone of greater dignity than to have one's own existence. Therefore, human nature is more dignified in Christ than in us, because in us with our own existence it has its own personality, whereas in Christ it exists in the person of the Word. [39]

Thus, Pius XI teaches that "human nature" in Jesus Christ does not have its own being or "existence," but rather "it exists in the person of the Word." While the Son of God assumes the essence or nature of created man (i.e., humanity), He does not assume the being of created man. The Son of God, therefore, does not assume human or created being.

So, Jesus Christ is not a human being except in a qualified sense. Rather, He is a divine Being.If one were to try to say that Jesus Christ is both a human and divine being, one would imply that Jesus Christ is both two beings (one divine and one human) or that He was a blend of a human being and a divine being. But, to say that Jesus Christ is two beings is to clearly fall into the Nestorian trap. For it does not matter whether you call the supposit of the man a person or a being and the supposit of the God a person or being, the result is still the same - two separate individuals. Salvation and the Catholic Faith would entirely collapse. For, as St. Thomas says, "Hence, if the human nature is not united to God the Word in person, it is nowise united to Him; and thus belief in the Incarnation is altogether done away with, and Christian faith wholly overturned." [40]

And an attempt to mix divine being and human being into one blended created and uncreated being would also be disastrous for the Faith. The early Fathers of the Church found it necessary to explicitly reject any intrusion into the Deity by created being. In his First Letter to Serapion, probably written between the years 359-360 A.D. from the Libyan Desert, St. Athanasius taught: "We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being." [41]

Finally, it is clear that Jesus Christ cannot be a human being or created being because we are called upon by the Church to adore Jesus Christ with "the worship known as 'latria' (act of adoration) which may be given to God alone." [42] But, it is idolatry to adore anything created. Jesus Christ, therefore, can only be a divine Being. St. Thomas says: "the adoration of latriais not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself, but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father." [43] Similarly, Pius VI taught in "Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794 that the "humanity and the very living flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed on account of itself as mere flesh, but because it is united to the divinity." [44]

Thus, while it is correct to say that Jesus is fully human because He has an essence or full human nature in common with us, we should not say that Jesus is a human being. The "a" in the "a human being" particularly indicates an individually existing created human substantial form or nature. It will be most likely be understood as human substance or human nature in the sense of a "hypostasis," "suppositum," or "subject," i.e., "person." And then it would be incorrect.

The hypostatic union in Jesus Christ is a mystery beyond all telling. We will never completely understand how a fully human nature or substantial formcan be joined to a divine Person without destroying itself or substantially altering the being of the divine Person. We cannot even understand how a substantial form can have the divine Person as its suppositum or being. We only know that this is not contradictory. While Jesus Christ has a full human nature and a full divine nature, these natures subsist in His divine Person (hypostasis or suppositum). So, we should not call Christ a human being, for He is a Divine Being. Jesus Christ is truly Emmanuel. He is a divine Person and Being in human form. When we touch the hands and fingers of Jesus Christ we are touching his divine Person. Thus, St. John refers to the "Word of Life" as that which "our hands have handled" (I Jn 1:1). Let us now turn our attention to the Blessed Sacrament.

The Blessed Sacrament is a Living Physical Divine Person and Being

The Council of Trent has defined that there is no difference between the reality of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Sacrament, except for theappearance. The Council stated: "First of all the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that in the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species (appearance [45]) of those sensible things." [46] Similarly, in his encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, Paul VI stated about the effect of the consecration at the Mass that "once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species ("appearance" [47]) - beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical 'reality,' corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." [48]

Because the Blessed Sacrament is the same "Thing" as Jesus Christ, one might also ask whether or not one can call the Blessed Sacrament a human person or a human being? No doubt, one might think that, if Christ's"physical 'reality"' is "corporeally present" in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Blessed Sacrament must be a human person or human being. But, we have previously stated that, for St. Thomas, substantial being is "being through itself (per se) because it is not in another" and "accidents" "do not have being in themselves, independent of a subject." But, "physical" is a quality and therefore only represents accidental being or "being in another (in alio)." And, the "Other" or "Subject" in which this physical quality subsists is the divine Being who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, theCatechism of the Catholic Church states that "everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject." [49] This includes Jesus Christ's "physical, 'reality'." [50]

So, when our tongues touch the Host, we are not coming into bodily contact with a human person and a human being. Rather, we are coming into bodily contact with a living physical divine Person and Being as directly and immediately as did St. Thomas the Apostle when he put his finger into the nail-marks of Jesus' wounds and his hand into Jesus' side and exclaimed: "My Lord and my God!" (Jn. 20:27-28). The Blessed Sacrament is Emmanuel!

See my underlining. I think this article is very confusing -- perhaps because it is worded poorly?

I think what the author is saying is that the Word/Son was not created and is fully divine. I do not think the author is saying that Jesus of Nazareth, born about 2000 years ago is not fully human.

I would appreciate some clarification, please.

Thank you.

[Byblos]

I think what the author is saying is that the Word/Son was not created and is fully divine. I do not think the author is saying that Jesus of Nazareth, born about 2000 years ago is not fully human.

That is absolutely correct. We cannot say Jesus the man was created and Jesus the divine was not. This sort of language separates Jesus the divine from Jesus the man and approaches Nestorianism, long declared a heresy (which is one of the reasons why Aquinas wrote extensively on the hypostatic union, by the way).

It is correct to say that Jesus according to his human nature was born and died but he was uncreated. It is also correct to say Jesus according to his divine nature did not die. It is further correct to say that Jesus is fully divine and fully man, and he is one.

Nestorianism and other similar heresies, by the way, were the first and foremost reasons for the Marian (mother of God) doctrine. But that, of course, is an entirely different discussion.

[BavarianWheels]

It is correct to say that Jesus according to his human nature was born and died but he was uncreated. It is also correct to say Jesus according to his divine nature did not die. It is further correct to say that Jesus is fully divine and fully man, and he is one.

Byblos, I hijacked this point into the Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins thread. If you will, can you explain for me there in light of that topic? Thx.
.
.

[Christian2]

Thank you Byblos. I was hoping you would show up.

I think the guy who said:

Someone made the claim that Trinitarians deny that God is or has become "a human being" or a man. He asserts that Trinitarians believe Jesus had human nature, but that He is not a human being.

didn't understand what the article said, and/or does not understand what the concept of the Trinity teaches.

[Kurieuo]

Thank you Byblos. I was hoping you would show up.

I think the guy who said:

Someone made the claim that Trinitarians deny that God is or has become "a human being" or a man. He asserts that Trinitarians believe Jesus had human nature, but that He is not a human being.

didn't understand what the article said, and/or does not understand what the concept of the Trinity teaches.

For me, "human being" and "human nature" are synonymous. God took on human nature, thereby becoming a human being.

God took on more than human form (i.e., a statue may possess a human form, but not a human nature). So I do not think the example of transubstantiation effectively explains the difference. It would be good to press what exactly the difference is here between "being" and "nature".

It seems liberalism loves to, for some reason or another, dichotomise our ontology into a nature/person entity. This is best displayed in pro-abortion arguments which try to draw away focus from the unborn possessing human natures, to asking whether they can be considered human persons.

That said, I can see why some Christians might fall for this, since it seems closely akin to nature/soul. Nonetheless, I believe it to be a faulty dichotomy.

[Christian2]

The guy who presented the article is a Unitarian, if that helps.