My reply to Aquinas: Whether Christ's passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?

 Whether Christ's passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?


Aquinas’ reply 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.

My reply to Aquinas: saying the Lord of glory has the capacity of suffering then makes the Lord of glory as being potentially able to suffer. But according to Aquinas, God has no potency. Therefore, this reply of his is inconsistent with what he says elsewhere.


Aquinas reply 2: Christ's death being, as it were, God's death"—namely, by union in Person—"destroyed death"; since He who suffered "was both God and man. For God's Nature was not wounded, nor did It undergo any change by those sufferings."

My reply: Maybe what Aquinas meant is that God and man considered conjunctively suffered, but God, considered apart from man, didn’t suffer. But this is confusing. Is Jesus God? Yes. Did Jesus suffer? Yes. Can God suffer? No. This is outright contradictory. If Aquinas wants to say that we must say God and man considered conjunctively through Christ suffered but we must not say that God suffered, then I think there is an inconsistency. The inconsistency arises when the Church clearly teaches that God suffered for our sins. Maybe I am wrong on the clearness of this Church teaching; maybe it is actually the case that the Church teaches Christ, God and man considered conjunctively, suffered for our sins, but the Church still holds God, considered apart from man, didn’t suffer.


The hypostatic union is found through the Second Person of the Trinity, not through God’s nature itself. Aquinas seems to hold to the proposition that God, considered apart from man, cannot suffer, but God, through the hypostatic union, can suffer. He says in support of this, “the Passion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature.” 


I suspect Aquinas may hold that sans the hypostatic union, God has an impassible nature, but God, the Second Person of the Trinity, has a passible nature with the hypostatic union.


I think the Trinity, Christ, and suffering is still mysterious though it can be shown to be not inconsistent with the different terms used and defined. The trouble for me is to see exactly what the terms entail. It seems like if I use a seemingly good synonym for some Christological, suffering, or Trinitarian term, I will be in danger of misunderstanding the Trinity, Christ, and suffering.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

justification

  Second Council of Orange (AD 529): CANON 18 . “That grace is not preceded by merit.  Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.” Council of Trent on Justification: “but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification . For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” Efficient cause: “ a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance” Meritorious cause: “ His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Fat...
Read more