Dave,
I'm not sure where your text on communicatio idiomatum comes from, but I'm not sure it's the best text. I'm not sure any of what it says is incorrect -- I'm not a theologian, so I can't be positive. However, it seems like in the following section there are subtle distinctions being made that are not clarified, and could lead to some confusion:
"Thus, we may not say that the human activities (birth, death, suffering, etc) apply to the Man-Christ only or that divine activities (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) can only be asserted of the God-Logos.
"Therefore, we can rightly say, for example, that God (or the Divine Logos) suffered, died, rose again, etc. (see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 143-144, 160-161). To assert the contrary is Nestorianism. Lutheran theology errs in asserting that Christ as a man knows all and can do all, etc. "
On the one hand, your text says that it is an error to attribute omniscience only to the God-Logos, but on the other hand your text says that it is an error to say that Christ as a man knows all.
I think that the first statement rejects Nestorianism, and that the second one rejects monophysitism, but the way they are phrased makes them sound contradictory. You might search for a different source text on this doctrine.
Thanks,
DelRayVA
I thought that was clarified with this quote:
-------------
Ott writes: "while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and 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" (p. 161).
"the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature" (p. 161).
"
I could only figure this out by using both of my functional neurons at the same time (If I'm right). I agree with DelRayVA that the statements are not clear. Since your point was to try and make clear basic theology to the unschooled (me), I think that part could be re-written in clearer language.
I'll take a look at it again, and the sources I used (Ott, mostly, as I recall).
while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and 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" (p. 161).
I think what he's saying is that Jesus is both God and man and thus he was able to be both weak and omnipotent, ignorant and omniscient, etc but being omnipotent God did not make him omnipotent man and being a limited man did not make him a limited God.
Why didn't you just say so?
Why didn't you just say so?
My concern is to convey as precisely as I can the doctrines here considered. They are quite complex and so wording is supremely important. Rather than do my own "popular paraphrase" I thought it would be wise and prudent to use the words of theologians as much as possible (as I am no theologian).
The trouble was that I couldn't find all that much on this topic. Looking at the Catechism now, I see some helpful material, but it isn't very concise, which is what I was looking for, for my purpose.I will mention it for further reading in my revision.
I revised the communicatio idiomatum section, by making it almost all citations, adding significant additional material from Ott and the Catholic Catechism, and including linked references to the CCC and the Council of Ephesus (12 Anathemas of St. Cyril).
If people still find it unclear, than that has to be the fault of Ludwig Ott, but he is the most precise and concise (and trustworthy) source I can find on the issue at the moment.
History of Heresy
Manichaeism
Very early this (coupled with Platonism)
The assumption
Spirit only could be sanctified,
A spiritual pride
Only emphasized at that time.
Arianism next;
Tried to divide The Trinity,
Deny Christ,
But not quite-‘emanation’.
Athanasius saved the day,
Hiding in a cave.
Nothing wrong with us Pelagius?
No Original Sin.
Immaculate catholic credentials (hidden in the eloquence),
But he kept slipping it in,
Until pope Zosimus had enough and condemned him.
Nestorious notorious for having a problem with ‘theotokos’,
She couldn’t be the mother of his Divine Nature.
Like an incubator then, not flesh of her flesh,
Bone of her bone, yes he was wrong.
The Albilgensian heresy;
The body bad of course (as well as the world),
But the spirit no good either,
No good on either side,
Let’s all commit suicide.
Protestantism
Disgruntled Augustinian
Brooding in his cell.
It doesn’t really deserve the word heresy,
Just a mood, PROTEST.
Modernism as well;
Essentially morbid,
Everything questioned, nothing solid.
Condemned by the pope years ago.
The Church prevails…
but the way they are phrased makes them sound contradictory
It might be made clearer if one remembers the rule that one speaks about natures only when a modifier is used; otherwise, it is presumed that one is speaking of person. Ott is correct, because he says "Lutheran theology errs in asserting that Christ as a man knows all and can do all, etc." Similarly, anytime you see buzzwords like "as a man" or "according to His divine nature," these are understood to speak of nature.
But terms like "Man-Christ" (see, e.g., 1 Tim "the man Christ Jesus") and "Divine Logos" are personal; they don't refer to nature despite using the terms "man" and "divine logos." The use of personal terms always refers to a single divine person having both natures. There is no contradiction, because one is speaking about person and one about nature.
People often get confused between talking about a person with two natures and talking about natures as natures. Mentioning natures, as in terms like "Man-Christ" and "Divine Logos," simply refer to the same person having two natures. That's not talking about nature as nature. The trick is to look for magic phrases like "as man" or "according to His human nature" and to recognize that person is otherwise intended.
Commenting by HaloScan
