Christ and the beatific vision

[Therapon]

Cam42 did recently write that Christ possessed the beatific vision from his conception.

I am opposed to this teaching for several reasons

1) How can Jesus have been said to truly suffer if he did possess the beatific vision?

2)This view also has problems regarding the free operation of the Christ's human will.

3) The sources tell us that Jesus remained obedient to the Father, despite trials and tests, (Mk. 1.12-13, 14:32-42, Luk, 22:28, Heb 2:18), if Jesus did possess the beatific vision, this would exclude any real struggle on his part, His tests would not have real threats to his loyalty but rather just examples for our spiritual benefit.

4) How can one reconcile the beatific vision with Jesus' knowledge about the world? Because this knowledge is human it develops as years pass by, but ultimately stays limited. If Christ did possess the beatific vision (which Aquinas defines as knowledge about all creatures and their actions) this would cast doubt on Jesus' human knowledge.

5) The Scriptures do tell us about limitations in Jesus' knwoledge:

Luk 2:52 'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.' (DRB) and this is even interpreted quite literally by a man such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was a staunch defender of the divinity of Christ.

BTW, my whole approach to this topic is coloured by the antiochene school.

Best wishes,

Edited June 21, 2005 by Therapon

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Jesus Christ had, no doubt, also an experimental knowledge acquired by the natural use of His faculties, through His senses and imagination, just as happens in the case of common human knowledge. To say that his human faculties were wholly inactive would resemble a profession of either Monothelitism or of Docetism. This knowledge naturally grew in Jesus in the process of time, according to the words of Luke, ii, 52: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men". Understood in this way, the Evangelist speaks not merely of a successively greater manifestation of Christ's Divine and infused knowledge, nor merely of an increase in His knowledge as far as outward effects were concerned, but of a real advance in His acquired knowledge. Not that this kind of knowledge implies an enlarged object of His science; but it signified that He gradually came to know, after a merely human way, some of the things which he had known from the beginning by His Divine and infused knowledge. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm[/url]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Therapon' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:28 AM']Cam42 did recently write that Christ possessed the beatific vision from his conception.

I am opposed to this teaching for several reasons

1) How can Jesus have been said to truly suffer if he did possess the beatific vision?

2)This view also has problems regarding the free operation of the Christ's human will.

3) The sources tell us that Jesus remained obedient to the Father, despite trials and tests, (Mk. 1.12-13, 14:32-42, Luk, 22:28, Heb 2:18), if Jesus did possess the beatific vision, this would exclude any real struggle on his part, His tests would not have real threats to his loyalty but rather just examples for our spiritual benefit.

4) How can one reconcile the beatific vision with Jesus' knowledge about the world? Because this knowledge is human it develops as years pass by, but ultimately stays limited. If Christ did possess the beatific vision (which Aquinas defines as knowledge about all creatures and their actions) this would cast doubt on Jesus' human knowledge.

5) The Scriptures do tell us about limitations in Jesus' knwoledge:

Luk 2:52  'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.' (DRB) and this is even interpreted quite literally  by a man such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was a staunch defender of the divinity of Christ.

BTW, my whole approach to this topic is coloured by the antiochene school.

Best wishes,
[right][snapback]617764[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In order to start this discussion, I've gotta ask.....do you believe that Christ had two natures, in other words was he fully divine and fully human?

[Therapon]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:41 AM']In order to start this discussion, I've gotta ask.....do you believe that Christ had two natures, in other words was he fully divine and fully human?
[right][snapback]617771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I affirm the Creed of Chalcedon, yes.

[i][b]
"Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us."[/i][/b]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Therapon' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:51 AM']I affirm the Creed of Chalcedon, yes.

[i][b]
"Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us."[/i][/b]
[right][snapback]617779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then you affirm the Beatific Vision.....one of the properties of the Divine Nature of Christ is the Beatific Vision.

From the article that Eremite linked to:
[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia' date=' 1910']The great theologians freely grant that this doctrine is not stated in so many words in the books of Sacred Scripture, nor even in the writing of the early Fathers; but recent masters in theology do not hesitate to consider the contrary opinion as rash, though it was upheld by the pretended Catholic school of Günther. The basis for the privilege of the beatific vision enjoyed by the human soul of Christ is its Hypostatic Union with the Word. This union implies a plenitude of grace and of gifts in both intellect and will. Such a fullness does not exist without the beatific vision. Again, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union the human nature of Christ is assumed into a unity of Divine person; it does not appear how such a soul could at the same time remain, like ordinary human beings, destitute of the vision of God to which they hope to attain only after their stay on earth is over.[/quote]

Jesus repeatedly asserts that He knows the Father and is known by Him, that He knows what the Father knows.

John the Baptist implies that Christ did in fact have the Beatific Vision:
[quote name='John 3:33-36 (Douay-Rheims)'] He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all.  And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony.  He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true.  For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.  He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. [/quote]

St. Paul also affirms this:
[quote name='Colossians 2:2-3']That their hearts may be comforted, being instructed in charity, and unto all riches of fulness of understanding, unto the knowledge of the mystery of God the Father and of Christ Jesus:  In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.[/quote]

While Jesus had to undergo all things human, because of his human nature. In this manner, he had to grow in wisdom, he had to suffer and die. But he also had a vision of this suffering and death in Gethesemane. He knew that in order for the sins of man to be forgiven the he would have to take up the chalice....
[quote name='Matthew 26:39']And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.[/quote]
[quote name='Mark 14:36']And he saith: Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt.[/quote]

The Beatific Vision is a matter of Faith.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Therapon' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:28 AM']Cam42 did recently write that Christ possessed the beatific vision from his conception.

I am opposed to this teaching for several reasons

1) How can Jesus have been said to truly suffer if he did possess the beatific vision?

2)This view also has problems regarding the free operation of the Christ's human will.

3) The sources tell us that Jesus remained obedient to the Father, despite trials and tests, (Mk. 1.12-13, 14:32-42, Luk, 22:28, Heb 2:18), if Jesus did possess the beatific vision, this would exclude any real struggle on his part, His tests would not have real threats to his loyalty but rather just examples for our spiritual benefit.

4) How can one reconcile the beatific vision with Jesus' knowledge about the world? Because this knowledge is human it develops as years pass by, but ultimately stays limited. If Christ did possess the beatific vision (which Aquinas defines as knowledge about all creatures and their actions) this would cast doubt on Jesus' human knowledge.

5) The Scriptures do tell us about limitations in Jesus' knwoledge:

Luk 2:52  'And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.' (DRB) and this is even interpreted quite literally  by a man such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was a staunch defender of the divinity of Christ.

BTW, my whole approach to this topic is coloured by the antiochene school.

Best wishes,
[right][snapback]617764[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Theropon, God Bless, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be upon you,

I will respond to each question in turn:

Response to 1.) By virtue of His Divine Nature, Christ can rightly be said to enjoy the Beatific Vision, for the Divinity of the Son is of the same substance as that of the Father, and the human nature of Christ is hypostatically united to that divine nature. By virtue of His human nature, Christ can rightly be said to have suffered, for through his humanity he shared in all of our human experience, save sin. By humbling Himself to share in our humanity, he raised that humanity - including human suffering - to share in the One Divinity.

Response to 2.) Only if you have a Nominalist idea of what constitutes "free will." More on this in the next response:

Response to 3.) Here you seem to be implying that Christ must have been able to sin, or fail, in order to truly merit the redemption of mankind. This, however, is not the case, [i]especially[/i] if you are looking at salvation from an Anselmian Atonement Theory, as it appears that you are.

It seems to me that your argument goes as follows (please correct me if I am incorrect):
A.) Christ became Incarnate for the purpose of redeeming Man.
B.) In order to redeem Man, the God-Man (Christ) must merit redemption
C.) In order to merit redemption, Christ must
a.) Not Sin
b.) Act Freely
D.) In order to Act Freely, it is necessary for Christ to have been able to sin, and choose not to
Therefore.) Christ must have been able to sin.

However, the ability to sin does not pertain to Free Action, or Free Will, for if it did, then God, all the Angels in Heaven, and all the Saints would lack freedom.

Anselm rightly defines Free Will as "the ability to keep uprightness ([i]rectitudio[/i]) for its own sake."

The fact that Christ was impeccable, and therefore utterly unable to sin, does not make his actions "less free" but rather, it makes them [i]more free[/i], for the person who is able to do what is fitting and right in such a way that he could never do what is unfitting or disadvantageous is more free than one who should do what he ought and yet might not.

Thus, the fact that Christ could not sin makes him more free than we, who can sin, for he has perfect freedom - namely, the perfected ability to keep uprightness-of-will for its own sake.

The "tests" which you mention were just as "real" for Christ as they are for us, for indeed, the tests themselves are precisely the same. The difference lies in the level of perfection of the free will being tested. Christ, with a perfected free will, was utterly unable to fall to such tests, while we, who do not have perfected free wills, may fall.

Response to 4.) The Beatific Vision, which Christ has always had by virtue of His Divine Nature, was gradually understood as pertains to His human nature, which, as you say, grew and developed. I will use a simple analogy, which I admit ahead of time could never truly encompass such a deep mystery:

Imagine that you own a small treasure chest, which contains many gems of great value. However, you do not empty the box at once, but rather, you gradually take one gem out at a time, slowly accumulating all of the gems. By virtue of your ownership of the treasure chest, you have always been in possession of the entirety of the treasure. However, by virtue of your choice to remove the treasures one-by-one, we say that you "gradually" amassed your wealth.

If we understand the chest to be the Divine Nature, and "you" to be the human nature, then we can understand the teaching of how Christ could simultaneously possess the Beatific Vision and grow in knowledge and wisdom in a human way.

Response to 5.) See above: Christ, by virtue of his human nature, grew in the knowledge of what, by his Divine Nature, he always possessed.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Therapon]

Thank you all for your responses, I shall digest this and come back with a response soon enough.

Yours in Christ,

Therapon

[Apotheoun]

It is important when discussing this issue to keep in mind the teaching of Constantinople III:


[b]The Definition (Horos) of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III (A.D. 681) against the Monothelite heretics[/b]

Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations (energies) indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: "I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!" where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: "His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified."

We glorify two natural operations (energies) indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation(energy) and a human operation (energy), according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: "For each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh."

For we will not admit one natural operation (energy) in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation, and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations (energies), concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

[Mateo el Feo]

Some references:

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM#par75"]MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI[/url]: Encyclical of Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ" on June 29, 1943. See Paragraph 75.

Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401001.htm"]Whether the soul of Christ comprehended the Word or the Divine Essence?[/url]

Other stuff:
1) [url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/0304-97/christo2.html"]The Human Knowledge of Christ by John O' Connell (Catholic.net)[/url]
2) [url="http://www.pax-et-veritas.org/Jesus/knowlege.htm"]The Knowledge of Jesus Christ[/url]