Not to split hairs, but "God died on the cross" is a completely true statement IMHO. Otherwise, we deny Jesus's divinity (much like we use the title Theotokos, "God-bearer", for Mary and not merely Christotokos, "Christ-bearer", which would imply that Jesus's human nature but not His divine was born of Mary).

I understand Patripassianism is heresy, so anyone have a guess as to how to reconcile these?
Orthros | 01.31.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Wow, the angels are really dancing on the head of the pin today.

Shouldn't you be working, Mark?
Earl | 01.31.06 - 2:39 pm | #

Btw, just to clarify something that should be obvious but I have found is not obvious to many Christians (even Catholics): Jesus still has a (risen, glorified and ascended) human nature. And will for eternity, since human nature is immortal in the future direction, as it were.

Lots of people labor (silently) under the misimpression or error that, with the Ascension, Christ ceased to have a human nature.
Liam | 01.31.06 - 2:45 pm | #

One of Protestantism's biggest weaknesses is a lack of strong Incarnational theology. Liam hit the nail on the head; Christoplatonism is alive and well in the Christian churches (and sadly, many Catholic ones too) today.
Orthros | 01.31.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Earl,

Mark IS working.

When he helps out inquisitive folks as he has above, Mark is advertising his bona fides and abilities as a Catholic commentator.

I'm more likely to hire him to speak to my parish when he posts things like this.

So yeah, he's working, and maybe a little less snarkiness is in order.
naptown | 01.31.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Saying God died on the cross is true. Saying the Blessed Trinity died on the cross is false.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:54 pm | #

First, Orthros is correct on this first point. The theological term for what he's talking about is the "communicatio idiomatum" (communication or exchange of attributes due to the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ); this is why we can and must say things like "God died on the cross" and "Mary is the Mother of God" -- insofar as we understand this to be a reference to the Second person of the Trinity who became incarnate.

To say that the Trinity suffered, or the Father suffered, however, is indeed Patripassianism.

Your correspondent's problem is that s/he doesn't seem to know the traditional language and categories of Trinitarian thought.

"The total of a sum, reflecting onto a sum, changing its meaning to a total" is meaningless.

"Three facets of the same stone" is inaccurate. This would imply that each is not fully and equally the stone. And if you mean that the three persons are just different angles or modes of perception of the one God, well, then you've lapsed into modalism.

Now, he may be stumbling onto something correct when he says they are "distinct but not separate." The Church's phrase is "omnia opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa." That is, all the outwardly directed actions of the Trinity are indivisible; in all that the Trinity does toward us or to the world (i.e., creation, redemption, sanctification) the entire Trinity is present. We make distinctions between the persons in their relations with one another (Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten, the Son breathes the Spirit, the Father sends the Spirit, the Spirit is breathed and sent, not begotten, etc.).

"If my assumptions of the Triune God are correct, when Jesus died The Father and the Holy Spirit died." No.

The Trinity is a mystery--i.e., something that we cannot know by reason but which we know by revelation. The Trinity was revealed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and in the sending of the Holy Spirit. The Church worked out its way of expressing the mystery through three centuries of debate. The CHurch's teaching is not incomprehensible, but it does require careful study in an historical manner of how the Church's teaching developed. Start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church for an overview.
Bill Cork | 01.31.06 - 2:56 pm | #

"One of Protestantism's biggest weaknesses is a lack of strong Incarnational theology."

That's an overgeneralization. Lutheranism has a very well developed incarnational theology, the key example of which is Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ -- Lutheran Christology was worked out in controversy with Calvinists (and crypto-Calvinists within Lutheranism); Luther and Lutheranism saw Calvinism to be Nestorian, and saw this revealed in Calvin's Eucharistic theology (which has the divinity of Jesus present in the meal but the humanity absent in heaven). Good reading for the theologically and historically literate.
Bill Cork | 01.31.06 - 2:59 pm | #

Another helpful Google term would be Sabellianism.

The Trinity is the deepest doctrine we have. It's impossible to penetrate this mystery fully in this lifetime--that's what heaven is for. So it's a pretty safe guess that when we think we have it all figured out, we're wrong. We know some things but not much. Mostly we know how to avoid the errors that have already been made--like Sabellian modalism and its partner Patripassianism.

Jesus Christ is God, but He is not the Father.
Kathy | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 3:02 pm | #

Mark,

As one who has studied systematic theology, your observations are correct.

We can not speak of the Trinity as a "sum". Each person of the Trinity is fully God in "being" or "essence". What this means is that if we could point at a person of the Trinity as an object and ask "What is it?", the answer is "God".

Nor can we refer to each person as distinct "facets" (bordering on modalism).

The Father does not appear as the Son in one circumstance, and as the Spirit in another. Each person is eternally distinct such that all three simultaneously exist in the one essence called God.

This is a difficult concept to understand, it is imperative to make the distinction between what is meant by the word "person" compared to the word "being".

The category of "being" answers the question "What is it?", but the category of "person" answers the question "Who is it?".

If someone points at ME and asks, "What is it?", the answer might be "A human being".

If the same person points at me and says "Who is it?", the response might be "The Father of Serafia [my daghter]".

Personhood is always and everywhere defined by a relationship.

My own human being expresses itself in more than one person. I am father to Serafia, but not father to my wife or my dad!

My personhood as father, spouse and son is defined in relationships with other human beings whose personhood is defined in relationship with me.

God is always one unique being. There is only one being who is rightly called God, and that being is not several beings.

Where Trinitarian doctrine shifts into pure mystery communicating the incomprehensibility of divinity - going beyond reason without violating the rules of strict logic - is that the persons within God are defined in relationship to one another without any division in being.

The language used to describe each person is somewhat metaphoric, since the Son is not literally a biological offspring of the physical body called "Father". The metaphors typically describe love and function. Other metaphors are used as well. Christ is the Logos or Word of the Father. The Spirit is the Wisdom of God and God's bride, etc....

We can distinguish the divine persons by their relationship to one another, but we can never separate the persons in being. Where the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Spirit - for it is always one and the same being that is operating.

Thus, we cannot say each person of the Trinity "operates separately", because they always act together as one single being.

We can even go so far as to say that Jesus is the human face of God, because the Father and the Spirit act in him, even as they are distinct persons in relationship with him.

As to whether God died when Jesus died on the cross, we're treading in the realm of mystery once again, but the answer is "no". God assumed a human nature in Christ, and that human nature was put to death.

Yet, divinity cannot die, because the being we are refering to when we refer to God is "I Am Who Am" or absolute BE-ing in itself - the pure act of existence considered as an essence in itself. If the act of existence ceased to exist for even a nano-second, all of reality would cease with it. We exists as distinct "human beings" only because "BE-ing" holds us in the act of existence. By merely existing, we are participating in God's nature.

What the Christian is proclaiming in the mystery of the incarnation is that the ground of all being that holds everything in existence right now, assumed a human nature to reveal "Who" he is for us.

And in revealing who he is for us, he also revealed a deep mystery of his own inner nature. God is three distinct persons forming and completing identity on the basis of relationship within his own nature. God is one, yet communion in relationship. We image God in our capacity to "become one flesh" in relationships with other persons.

Though we image God, we are not exactly like God. For us, personhood is confused with being because we relate not only with a person, but the person as a being separate from our own being. My daughter and I are two separate beings belonging to the same category of being. Thus, our mind tends to associate personhood with being as synonymns.

But these terms were not synonymns in the age that the doctrine formed. Personhood originates with the idea of a character in a play ( "persona" was the word for a mask worn by actors), and the Greek "hypostasis" conveys the notion of a subcategory of being arising out of more fundamental being ( "hypostasis" literally means "that which stands upon" ). Personhood is not identical to fundamental being, but is a sort of derivative identity fomed and completed by relationship.

In the God's deepest being or nature, God is relational. That is what the Trinity conveys in its simplest form.

Peace!
jcecil3 | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 3:15 pm | #

"As to whether God died when Jesus died on the cross, we're treading in the realm of mystery once again, but the answer is "no"."

jcecil:

No it's not. God did die on the cross, as God was born of the Virgin Mary.

The relevant concept is called "communicatio Idiomatum," adeptly summarized at New Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 04169a.htm
Kevin Jones | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 3:44 pm | #

Although God the Father and God the Holy Spirit didn't suffer on the cross, didn't "they" (is that the right word?) completely understand and feel God the Son's suffering on the cross, since they are of the same essence and are one (Jesus said "I and the Father are one".)?

Deep mysteries indeed, never to be fully understood here or possibly not even completely in heaven.
GregM | 01.31.06 - 3:51 pm | #

Kevin,

The very article you site states exactly the opposite of what you say it does.

...,though it be true that Christ did not die according to His Divine nature, we cannot say, "Christ did not die", without impairing His human nature;...

Peace!
jcecil3 | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 4:09 pm | #

God the Son died in His created human nature, not in His eternal divine nature. It is good to know that the doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one divine nature that is fully possessed by each of three divine persons. It is better to know also what the technical terms "person" and "nature" mean. I strongly recommend Frank Sheed's books A Map of Life, Theology for Beginners, and Theology and Sanity, all of which discuss this point at length with great clarity. A Map of Life is on line at http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIR...IRIT/ MAPLIF.TXT
Marty Helgesen | 01.31.06 - 5:34 pm | #

"God the Son died in His created human nature, not in His eternal divine nature."

But the point being made by a couple of folks is that the communicatio idiomatum makes it legitimate to say, "God died," "God suffered," "God bled," "Mary is the Mother of God," etc. This is different from saying a "nature" died. If Jesus is God, all these things are proper statements.
Bill Cork | 01.31.06 - 5:42 pm | #

Bill:

Any helpful summaries on the whole concept of "omnia opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa"?

Those would be valuable, indeed. The triune nature of God is a constant source of discussion at our parish's bible study.

Thanks in advance!
Dale Price | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 5:49 pm | #

Besides the Catechism, a very good source is the online Catholic Encyclopedia, at www.newadvent.org.

All the terms and heresies being bandied about here can be found in the Encyclopedia, with very long and detailed entries.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 5:49 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Catholic theology tells us that God the Son truly died in His human nature.

Death is not a cessation of existence, but a separation. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. The Divine Nature is pure, indivisible Spirit, without a body. Therefore, the Divine Nature cannot die; there is no body and soul to separate from each other.

When God the Son assumed a true human soul and body in the Incarnation, He became capable of death - not in His simple Divine Nature, but in His Sacred Humanity. By virtue of the hypostatic union, His human nature was truly united to the Divine Person of the Word, therefore whatever happened to His humanity happened to His Person. Hence God (the Son) was born of the Virgin Mary, God (the Son) experienced hunger, thirst, exhaustion, etc. and God (the Son) died on the Cross.

The Person of God the Father did not assume a human nature, therefore God the Father did not and cannot die. God the Holy Ghost also did not assume a human nature, therefore the Holy Spirit did not and cannot die, either. Both of them indwelt Christ during His earthly life - and continue to indwell Him in Heaven, for that matter - yet they were not hypostatically united to His Sacred Humanity, and so were not born of Mary and did not die on the Cross. They surely knew what He felt by virtue of divine omniscence, but not because They personally "experienced" it as He did.

Thus we can truly say "God died on the Cross," meaning that God the Son died according to His human nature, NOT that God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or the entire Trinity died.

When Jesus died on the Cross, His human Soul separated from His human Body; this was a true physical death. Yet, interestingly enough, both His Body and Soul remained hypostatically united to the Person of the Word. That is why we can actually pray to Christ dead on the Cross; His human soul was gone but His Divine Person remained in His corpus! It was a true death from a human standpoint, but unlike any other death.

Hope that helps. BTW, jcecil3, where exactly is the Holy Spirit called God's "bride"?

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 8:58 pm | #

Marty Helgesen wrote:

God the Son died in His created human nature, not in His eternal divine nature.

Bill Cork replied:

But the point being made by a couple of folks is that the communicatio idiomatum makes it legitimate to say, "God died," "God suffered," "God bled," "Mary is the Mother of God," etc. This is different from saying a "nature" died. If Jesus is God, all these things are proper statements.

The key to this -- as St Cyril finally realized in the 5th century -- is that a "nature" cannot be the subject of an action or a passion. We cannot say "Jesus' human nature died," because Jesus is the subject. We must say "Jesus, who is both God and man, died in his human nature." This sentence remains true, but less precise, if we drop the adverbial phrase and just say "Jesus, who is both God and man, died."

Since Jesus is God, we can also say "God died." This is still true, but even less precise. Similarly, saying "Mary is the mother of God" is true but not very precise, because if you said this to someone who knew almost nothing about our religion, they would very likely misunderstand what you mean.

I am not suggesting that we should avoid imprecise language. Calling Mary "Mother of God" has tremendous value, because it is a gift from God. Similarly, God doesn't just allow us to "say" that he died. He wants us to say this, because God -- who in his nature cannot die -- managed to find a way to die nonetheless.

But when we are trying to carefully analyze matters, precise terminology is valuable.
Lawrence King | Homepage | 02.01.06 - 12:21 am | #

The original post quoted:

As so with the hypostatic union of Jesus, whatever He felt as fully human the Father and the Holy Spirit also felt.

This is another instance of improper use of the subject. All of us regular folks have one nature and one personal subject. However, God has one nature and three personal subjects. And the second person of the Trinity has two natures and one personal subject.

After the incarnation, any true statement of the form "Jesus, in his human nature, did X" remains true if you change it to "Jesus did X" and even if you change it to "God did X". But it does not always remain true if you change it to "The Holy Spirit did X" or to "The Father did X", because the Holy Spirit and the Father are distinct personal subjects from Jesus.
Lawrence King | Homepage | 02.01.06 - 12:25 am | #

Bill Cork quoted my statement, "God the Son died in His created human nature, not in His eternal divine nature."

He then said, "But the point being made by a couple of folks is that the communicatio idiomatum makes it legitimate to say, 'God died,' 'God suffered,' 'God bled,' 'Mary is the Mother of God,' etc. This is different from saying a 'nature' died. If Jesus is God, all these things are proper statements."

Of course they are proper statements. That's what I said. I did not say, "God the Son's human nature died". I said, "God the Son died in His created human nature..."
Marty Helgesen | 02.01.06 - 9:25 am | #

Thank you all for your help. Sometimes apparently non connected thoughts bounce around in my head until I can sort them out, put them together or throw them away. This process usually takes a long time, (I am not quick). This issue was very confusing for me giving me a strong since that I was wrong so as not to waste time I went to people I trust for input. So again thank you. I can move on.

I do want to clear one thing up and that is the phrase I used to describe the Trinity; “the total of a sum reflecting onto a sum changing its meaning to a total”. In aesthetics this is the working definition of design. The total of a sum is everything about a thing, person, or being that makes it what it is and only that which it is, ‘the divine economy’. That- reflects onto a sum- as the Father reflected, not as a mirror but with a totality of being (a total giving and total receiving) onto the Son brining forth the Holy Spirit – Changing its meaning (the individual parts) to a total- thus the Trinity. One way to look at it is to think of a clock. The total of a sum is a complete cog reflecting onto a sum, another cog, changing its meaning to a total the clock tells time. This makes each cog distinct but not separate for if you take one out the clock will not work. In a great painting if you take the red out all the other colors and layout of the piece should lead the viewer to still see red. This is why when some people first see Picasso’s Guernica they think it is painted in color and it is only after a moment or two that they realize that it is only painted in back & white., (please I don’t want to get into a discussion on the merits of Picasso it is only an example and this is not the forum for that) I know that is pretty simplistic and I do not mean to compare the Holy Trinity to a wall clock or a painting but it is a good working visual for me. As is the definition of Composition – To make exist all together as one.

Thanks again
Alan
Alan Capasso | 02.01.06 - 12:59 pm | #