okay so i'm live i'm back i'm gonna polish off section one so we are chapter four theological speculative discussion on the hypostatic union item 15 the supernatural and mysterious character of the hypostatic union the assumption of a created nature into the unity of a divine person is absolutely supernatural it is a grace in the most complete sense of the word that is an unmerited and unmeritable supernatural gift of god gratia unions see the soma reference is given saint ignatius of antioch designated christ simply as charisma the gift of grace we get the word charism from this two the hypostatic union as a mystery the hypostatic union is a mysterium strictly dictum that is a mystery of faith the reality of which could not be known before its revelation and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revolution revelation it is a unique union for which there are no analogues of a creature with god it is a unique union of a creature with so christ is creature in his human nature saint augustine speaks of a quote uniquely wonderful or wonderfully unique assumption end saint paul calls the incarnation and the work of redemption of christ quote a mystery hidden from eternity in god and quote and quote a mis a great mystery of piety references are given pope leo the great says quote that both substances unite themselves in one person no speech can explain if faith does not hold fast to it end quote the hyposotic union is the central mystery of the christian faith to which all other mysteries are item 16 objections against the dogma of the hypostatic union as a mysterium strict a dictum the hypostatic union is indeed elevated beyond human reason supra ratio rezione but on account of the harmony of faith and knowledge it is not contrary to risa contrary to reason are not in contra retzione accordingly human reason can deal with one from the side of the assuming in regard to the unique quality of the assuming divine person ex parte asumani it is objected that the hypostatic union contradicts the immutability of god celsius raises this objection i guess you can compare origins work against celsum the rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man as an operation of god add extra has no more induced a change in the divine essence than did the creation of the world as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will neither did the event of the incarnation result neither did the event of the incarnation result in the change of the divine essence or after the assumption of a body the logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before no change for the worst took place because the logos remains what it was and no change for the better because it already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity the word becoming man means means no more an intensification of the divine perfection than does god's creation of the world the change lay on the side of human nature only which was elevated to participation in the personal subsistence of the logos compare saint thomas and the references given in persona composite sint plura bona quam in persona simplici taemen and here i have a next exclamation point indicating a difficult concept number two from the side of the assumed in regard to the unique character of the assumed human nature ex parte associ it is objected that each individual complete human nature is a hypostasis or person and that in consequence christ's human nature is a human person the answer to this depends on the relationship of nature and person in the sphere of natural things each individual complete substance or nature subsists for itself and is thus a hypostasis the revelation of the mystery of the trinity and of the incarnation however leads us to the knowledge that some kind of distinction must exist between the individual complete nature and the hypostasis a distinction in thought only does not suffice for the explanation of the two dogmas a real or virtual distinction so a distinction in thought only is rendered in latin distinctio excuse me a against the hypothesis of a real distinction distinctive realis is to be objected that christ would lack the reality which every other human being possesses according to the teaching of the church however christ is a perfect man the advocates of a real distinction thomas and suarez replied that the lack of created subsistence in christ signified no real want because in the place of the lacking human subsistence there is an infinitely higher perfection namely the divine subsistence of the logos the church's insistence on the integrity of christ's human nature and his consubstantiality with us according to our humanity does not contradict this position since the integrity and consubstantiality refer to the human nature or essentiality as such while a subsistence accrues to a nature as a new reality it is claimed that christ's human nature has indeed a natural potency of being a hypostasis in itself in the concrete however on account of its assumption into the subsistence of the logos this potency is not reduced to act according to suarez the individual complete nature becomes a hypostasis by a mode of subsistence proceeding from the nature but really distinct from it this was lacking in the human nature of christ in its place another created substantial mode appeared called modus uniones which united the two natures with each other the thomas posit a real difference not merely between nature and hypostasis but also between nature or essence and existence and teach that the nature becomes an hypostasis by reason of the fact that it receives existence christ's human nature possesses no created existence of its own but the uncreated existence the subsistence of the logos the thomists base their arguments on the teaching of saint thomas concerning the unicity of being in christ and the references given to the suma however it appears questionable whether saint thomas by the unique being of christ understands the existence as say existencies or as is more probable the being of the supposedum compare the unione verbi incarnati a four which says essenem truly and properly is predicated of a subsisting suppositon in the same article saint thomas expressly speaks of a dual the scottists the franciscans the scotus posit of virtual difference only distinctio between nature and hypostasis a virtual difference only between nature and hypostasis in their opinion nature becomes an hypostasis by the fact that it remains by itself and is not taken up by a higher hypostasis the hyper the hypostasis adds no new reality to the nature christ's human nature according to them is not a human hypostasis or person because it is taken up into the divine hypostasis of the logos if the human nature of christ were ever released from the hypostatic union then it would of itself without the addition of any other reality be a human person in this view that which distinguishes the hypostasis from the nature and which makes an individual being an apostasis is something purely negative but that that which gives a nature its supreme perfection must surely be something positive christ's nature is as the greek fathers including leonie leon of byzantium who died in 543 emphasize in spite of its lack of its own proper human hypostasis not without an hypostasis if it is not immediately hypostatic that is subsisting by itself still it is in hypostatic that is assumed into the hypostasis of another so if it is not without hypostasis and that's rendered in greek and you post us oh and he posted uh sorry if it is not immediately hypostatic rendered in greek that is subsisting by itself still it is that is assumed into the hypostasis of three from both sides in connection with the relationship of the two natures united with each other ex parte unitorum it is objected that the finite human nature cannot be united with the infinite divine nature on account of their infinite distance apart however the objection merely proves the impossibility of the unification of the two natures in one single nature which is also rejected by catholic dogma the distinction between creator and creature remains since both natures remain preserved in their full integrity it is due to god's infinity that the hypostasis of the logos side by side with the divine nature can also possess a human nature the appropriateness of the incarnation may be demonstrated by god's infinity as it belongs to the essence of the good to communicate itself to others according to the principle bonam est de fusio de fusiboom sui so it is appropriate to the infinite goodness of god to communicate itself in the most perfect fashion to creatures and compare the summer reference that's given there human nature on the ground of its spiritual nature possesses a potentia obedient for its elevation into the substance of a divine person and another reference from summa is given there item 17 the relationship of the one the act of the hypostatic union the hypostatic union was affected by the three divine persons acting in common this is a defeated dogma the hypostatic union was affected by the three divine persons acting in common the creed of the 11th synod of toledos in succes in 675 states quote it is to be it is to be believed that the whole trinity affected the incarnation of the son of god because the works of the trinity are indivisible end quote the fourth letter the fourth lateran council in 1215 explains uni genitus de filius jesus christus a tota trinitate communiter as a work of god's love see john 3 16 1 john 4 9. the active incarnation that is the affecting of the same is appropriated to the holy ghost to the subsistent love of god quote conceived by the holy ghost in holy writ the unity of the operation of the three persons is indicated by the fact that the affecting of the incarnation is attributed to the father to the son and to the holy ghost and biblical references are given for each of those saint augustine witnesses quote mary's conceiving and bringing forth is the work of the trinity through whose creative activity all creation is made end quote that from his work on the trinity the intrinsic reason is the fact that the divine nature common to the three persons is the principium quo of all for more on this see the doctrine of the trinity paragraph 20. two the terminus of the hypostatic union and here we have a dogma only the second divine person became man this is a defeated dogma only the second divine person became man against the teaching of the sabellians patripassians the symbol of faith assert the symbols of faith assert the passive incarnation exclusively of the only begotten son of god holy writ also refers to the logos or of the son of god only when it says that he became flesh holy writ also refers to the logos or the son of god or the son of god only when it says that he became flesh and he came into the world john 1 14 john 3 16 and following contrary to the view of rosalind the union of human nature with a divine person does not imply the union of human nature with the other persons since the union occurs not in the nature but in the person and the persons are really distinct from one another the divine nature is only indirectly connected with human nature through the consequently it is in regard to the person of the logos only that the divinity can be regarded and uh they render in latin retzioni personae the synod of reams in 1148 declared against jill bear of poitiers who rejected the identity of god and his divinity and therefore rejected as unorthodox the phrase divinity incarnate so jill berapotier said quote credimus ipsam divini tatem moving on now chapter five inferences from the hyperstatic union item 18 the natural sonship of god of the man jesus christ one the heresy of adoptionism towards the end of the eighth century archbishop eli pandus of toledo who died in 802 and bishop felix of ergol or urgel who died in 1816 taught a double sonship of christ they said that as god he was the natural son of god as man the adopted son of god in the baptism in the jordan he was adopted by god through grace this theory of a double sonship in christ jesus christ logically demands two persons which is the error of nestorianism so when we think of adoptionism we can think of historianism right away this erroneous teaching was combated by the abbot biatus of libana bishop aetherius of osma and the frankish theologians especially alkwyn number two the teaching of the church and here we have a dogma not only as god but also as man jesus christ is the natural son of god it's a defeated dogma not only as god but also as man jesus christ is the natural son of god the condemnation of an historianism indirectly involves the condemnation of adoptionism pope hadrian the first who reigned or i hope that means reigned not lived reigned from 7 72 to 795 in two doctrinal writings rejected it as a renewal of the historian error and confirmed the decisions of the plenary council of frankfurt in 794 which rejected adoptionism as a heresy on the ground that he who was born of the virgin was true god and could therefore not be we may thus summarize the dogma the person subsisting in the human nature is the natural song of god the expression christ as man homo is not to be conceived in the reduplicative sense christus secundum as if the ground for his natural sonship of god lay in the human nature rather it is to be conceived in the specification specificative sense that is three proof from the sources of faith holy writ never calls the man christ the adopted son of god but the proper and only begotten son of god romans 8 32 for example says quote he that meaning god has not spared even his own son but delivered him up for us all and quote and john 3 16 says quote for god so loved the world as to give his only begotten son end quote compare john 1 14 and 18 and matthew 3 17. in the struggle against nestorianism the fathers rejected the doctrine of a double sonship in christ and stressed that the son of man is the same as the son of god they also expressly excluded an adoptive sonship of christ saint augustine points to holy writ saying quote read the scriptures you will never find it said of christ that he is through adoption the son of god end quote many traditional texts for example those of saint hillary and the masoretic mazarabic liturgy employ the expressions adobetare and abdulcio in the wider sense four argument from reason sunship belongs to the hypostasis or the person not the reference to the summa is given there as there is in christ only one single hypostasis or person which proceeds through eternal generation from god the father so also only one single sonship of god may be predicated of christ the natural sonship of god the view of medieval theologians including durandus who died in 1334 and many scottish that the man jesus christ is at the same time the natural son of god and by reason of the endowment of grace the adopted son of god is to be rejected as one and the same person cannot be both the natural son and an adopted son of now we have a little appendix christ as quote servant of god unquote and quran quote predestined son of god the adoptionists referred the appellation servant of god service day to the person and presupposed to the person and presupposed thereby a human person in christ side by side with the divine person to whom this appellation cannot be applied pope hadrian the first and the council of frankfurt in 794 reprobate reprobated it the term servant of god in this sense ratzione personae with regard to his assumed human nature which is subject to the dominion of god christ can however in a true sense be called servant of god and the reference of biblical references are given to support that the passage romans 1 4 who was predestined to be the son of god in power cannot as the adoptionist would suggest be understood of the predestination of christ to be to the adopted sonship of god the vulgate renders the original text wrongly pray destinatus instead of destinatus which in greek is oris this so it's interesting to note that the vulgate renders the original text wrongly i often talk about the superiority of the infallible living magisterium the dogmas that it gives us and the interpretations of scripture that it gives us and the on the other hand the imperfections of the bible and the various manuscripts we have and the translations we have and the errors that creep in all the imperfections and flaws in the bible and the fact that we don't have in our possession the original autograph so this is another example of how the church trumps the bible the vulgate bible which is the official bible of the catholic church it renders the original text wrongly error error error but there is no error in the originals so we have error in the official okay so what does that tell you it tells you that the living magisterium is superior to what we have if we had the original autographs then of course that would be superior because the church is the servant of revelation not the master of revelation the apostle expresses the thought that christ manifested himself in power after the resurrection in consonance with the dwelling in him according to another explanation was installed as the son of god in might that is in the condition of exaltation having regard to the general teaching of the vulcan of the vulgate the passage must be interpreted the passage must be interpreted in an orthodox way god predetermined from all eternity that the bearer of christ's humanity of the the bearer of christ human nature is the natural son of god and you can see the suma for more on that so here we have the church teaching us the sacred deposit of faith item 19 christ's right to adoration number one the teaching of the church and here we have a dogma the the god man jesus christ is to be venerated with one single mode of worship the absolute worship of latria which is due to god alone this is a defeate dogma the god man jesus christ is to be venerated with one single mode of worship the absolute worship of latria which is due to god alone in saint cyril's eight anathemas the council of ephesus in 431 rejected the nestorian co-veneration rendered in greek symposium of the man jesus christ with the word or logos and laid down as catholic teaching that the incarnate word by virtue of his unity of person is to be adored with one single yeah means one is in opposition to the double veneration proposed by the nestorians and the single veneration of the monophysites directed to the divine nature alone or to an ostensible mixed nature the fifth general council of constantinople in 553 declared that the incarnate logos with his own flesh is the object of the sarcos christ's humanity is through the hypostatic union a constituent part was a powers of the incarnate logos and is adored therefore in and with the logos it is indeed in itself the object of the adoration but not for its own sake but on account of its hypostatic union with logos not for its own sake is rendered in say okay so itself but not from its own sake is rendered in latin in say against the false teaching of the sin uh against the false teaching of the synod of pistoia in 1786 pope pius vi declared luckily they give the english here the humanity of the vivifying the humanity and the vivifying flesh of christ itself is adored not because of itself and as mere flesh but inasmuch as it is two proof from the sources of faith christ accepted worship by genuflection in greek is proscinisis which after the resurrection becomes latria latriatic veneration compare matthew 28 9 and matthew 17 i guess according to john 5 23 he claims for himself the same veneration which is due to the father saying quote that all men may honor the son as they honor the father end quote the apostle saint paul witnessed to the divine adoration due to christ in his humanity in philippians 2 10 where he says quote that in the name of jesus christ every knee should bow unquote and in hebrews 1 6 where he says quote and let all the angels of god adore him and quote compare apocalypse 5 12. the martyrdom of polycarp 156 80 distinguishes clearly between the adoration due to christ and the veneration due to the martyrs saying quote this one christ we adore because he is the son of god but the murders we duly love as disciples and imitators of the lord on account of their unsurpassable affection toward the fathers reject the reproach made by the apollinarists that we adore the flesh of christ the man christ on the ground that divine veneration is shown to christ's humanity not on its own account and separately from the word but on account of its hypostatic union with the word the veneration is intended for the adoration of the flesh is rendered in greek and the man christ is rendered in greek anthropolatria worship of man and a bunch of references given at the bottom of that paragraph number three speculative foundation the veneration is in the proper sense shown to the person only in christ there is only the one divine person of the logos thus there belongs to him one veneration only the human nature however cannot be excluded from it as it is as it is inseparably united with the divine person compare the summa which says quote the honor of the adoration belongs in the proper sense to the subsisting hypostasis the adoration of christ's flesh means nothing else than the adoration of the word become flesh as the veneration of the king's garments signifies nothing else than the veneration of the clothed king the whole object objectum materiale totally of the adoration offered to christ is the incarnate word the human nature hypostatically united to the word is the partial object objectom partiale the ground objectum formale for the adoration is the item 20 adoration of the most sacred heart of jesus and here we have a dogma just as latria is due to the whole human nature of christ so is it due to the individual parts of his nature this is a censored grade of certainty just as the tree is due to the whole human nature of christ so it is due to the individual parts of his nature although in and for themselves all parts of christ's human nature are an equal manner worthy of veneration still since the times of the crusades a special veneration has developed for individual parts of his human nature for the five holy wounds and the members associated with them i belong to the con fraternity of the most precious blood the holy face the head of the suffering redeemer and the most sacred heart again the mysteries of his life his sufferings his death his conception birth etc are analogically objects of the worship of latria the reason why these parts of the human nature or these facts of christ christ's life are specially venerated lies in the fact that in them the redeeming love of christ is especially clearly revealed objective manifestations manifestations one dogmatic basis of the veneration the cult of the occult means worship the cult of the herd of jesus which was bitterly assailed by the janzenists and which originated in the german mysticism of the middle ages has its dogmatic basis in the dogma of the hypostatic union against the slanders of the jansenists pope pius vi declared that the herd of jesus is not separated or but rather adored as quote the heart of the person of the word with which it is inseparably united end cor personae verbi qui inseparabilitar excuse me two object of the veneration a the immediate object objectum proximum of materiale partiale of the cult of the heart of jesus is the corporeal heart of jesus as an essential constituent of the human nature of christ hypostatically united with the logos and not merely the heart in the metaphorical sense meaning love or whatever this is clear from the controversy with the jansenists and from the liturgical texts b the whole object is the word incarnate the god man jesus christ the formal object is the infinite d the reason why of all the parts of christ's humanity the heart is specially venerated is that the heart is the most perfect symbol of christ redeeming love for mankind compare the appeal in the litany of the heart of jesus which says quote heart of jesus burning furnace of love and quote according to the customary language of holy writ references are given and in the popular view the heart is the seat of the affections especially the affection of love as love is the motive of the redemption special love and veneration is shown to the organ of the redeemer which is regarded as the symbol of love the heart of jesus as a symbol of his redeeming love is the adequate object of the official church veneration of the heart of jesus as christ's redeeming love is particularly manifested in his bitter suffering and death and in the holy eucharist so the veneration of the passion of christ and the veneration of the eucharist stand in close association with the veneration of the heart of purpose of the veneration the purpose of the veneration of the heart of jesus is that firstly men may be stirred up to return love for love to christ and to imitate the virtues of the human heart of the incarnate god see matthew 11 29 and secondly to promote a desire to atone for the insults offered to the heart of jesus compare the encyclical miscerantisimos redemptor 1928 and caritate christi compulsi 1932 of pope pius xi and here we have a small appendix veneration of pictures and relics of christ according to the teaching of saint thomas a relative latria is due relative letria is due to pictures and relics of christ for example to the holy cross as the ground or the objectis formale of the veneration does not lie as the ground of the veneration does not lie in these things themselves but in the person of christ which they represent or to which they refer the veneration shown to them is not absolute but relative however it is a true latria since it refers in the last resort to the divine item 21 the communication of idioms the ontological basis of the communication of idioms is the community and mutual communication of the divine and human properties and activities in christ this derives from the unity of the person in such fashion that the human properties are predicated of the word and the divine properties of the man christ so the human properties are predicated of the word and the divine properties of the man christ the communicator idio idiomatum in the logical sense predication of idioms obviously derives from the ontological reality and here we have a dogma christ's divine and human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one word incarnate de fide christ's divine and human characteristics and activities are to be predicate are to be predicated of the one i guess god did suffer then the apostles creed attributes to the son of god the human properties of conception and birth of suffering and crucifixion of dying and of being buried the council of ephesus in 431 teaches with saint cyril of alexandria against nestorius that the assertions concerning christ contained in holy writ may not be divided between two persons the god logos and the human christ but must be referred to the one word made flesh as christ's divine person subsists in two natures and may be referred to either of these two natures so human things can be asserted of the son of god and divine the old lutheran doctrinal theology inclines to the monophysitic error which posits a real transference of divine attributes such as omniscience omnipotence ubiquity by reason of the hypostatic union to the human nature of christ and teaches that quote christ not only as god but also as man knows all can do all and is present to all created so that's inclining to the monophysitic error there's one nature one the communication of idioms and the sources of faith holy rit makes an extensive use of the communication of idioms for example john 8 58 says quote before abraham was i am and quote the man the man christ acts 3 15 says quote the author of life ye have killed end quote acts 20 28 says quote to rule the church of god which he god hath purchased with his own blood end quote romans 8 32 says quote he god hath spared not even his own son but delivered him up for us all end quote first corinthians 2 8 says quote for if they had known the wisdom of god they would have they would never have crucified the lord of glory made in god in consonance with the language of holy scripture saint ignatius of antioch speaks of the blood of god ephesians 1 uh his work whatever that is references there of the sufferings of god romans 6 3 and of the birth of god ex maria ephesians 18 2. it was origen who first expressly adverted to the exchange of predication references given two rules concerning the predication of idioms the nature of the hypostatic union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the divine and the human nature can be attributed to the person of christ on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature since concrete terms such as god son of god man son of man christ the almighty designate the hypostasis and abstract and abstract terms for example god have humanity omnipotence uh and abstract terms the nature the following rule may be laid down the in other words the communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones so for example the son of man died on the cross the rule is not valid if there be reduplication by root duplication the concrete term is limited to one nature thus it is false to say quote christ has suffered as god okay so that answers my question earlier when i was reacting to the wording of this dogma here christ's divine and human characteristics and activities such as suffering are to be predicated of the one word incarnate that's the defeat a dogma and i said i guess god really suffered then but this is saying no because of that distinction that is made predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones okay hold on i think i skipped something uh thus it is false to say christ has suffered as god or christ created the world as a human being those are false statements it must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature body and soul are referred to the nature whose parts they are thus it is false to say quote christ's soul is omniscient and quote or quote christ's body is ubiquitous end quote further the predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones as nothing may be denied to christ which belongs to him according to either nature one therefore must not say quote the son of god has not suffered end quote or quote jesus is not almighty end quote assertions liable to be misunderstood should be protected by clarifying additions like as god or as man for example christ as man he's a creature so that's clear so the communication of idioms won't allow us to introduce confusion in that way and finally we have for today item 22 and here we have a dogma the two natures of christ exist in the closest union it's ascent communist dogma the two natures of christ exist in the closest union the two natures despite the real distinction between them does not exist side by side as the historians thought but in a most close and intimate union from the hypostatic union that derives a mutual intimate union and penetration of one nature by the other this penetration of one nature by the other is designated by a term which goes back to saint quote christological perichoresis end quote rendered in greek perihoracis or in latin circum in inches or circum and queso i don't know how to pronounce c before any in latin circle manchester i think called by the latter school men circum in sessio i guess if i use a hard c it'll distinguish circum and chesio from circumcisio would have helped me earlier when i did the other episode the other day moving on now the power which unites the two natures and holds them together proceeds exclusively from the divine nature the penetration therefore having regard to its active component is not a mutual but a one-sided penetration it results however in the mutual intimate union of the two natures the godhead which itself is impenetrable penetrates and inhabits humanity which is thereby there which is thereby deified and then we have some reference to denzinger and some greek phrase here sarks meaning flesh flesh becomes god i guess de lima and another phrase here de lima theo then i guess that means the will the older fathers teach the doctrine of the pericoresis when they inaccurately designate the union of the two natures and then we have in greek mixes i guess that means mixed sim mixes means i guess that means whatever crosses together since the nestorian controversies the question has been minutely discussed it was treated in detail by saint john damascene and by later interesting that was the chrysological peripheries next time whenever that is next friday or whatever whenever i have time god willing i will continue with section 2 the attributes of christ's human nature chapter 1 the interesting always fun reading this stuff i hope you enjoy it thanks for being there and thanks for listening or watching and we will talk soon we will talk soon god bless