Any good reading on Christology?

[Bezant]

I'm afraid I know very little about it. Does anyone know of any good articles or books?

[LovePatience]

Fr. Amorth's an Interview with An Exorcist provided me with a few bits of unknown information on Christ, but I am also interested in the answer to this question.

[Alterum]

Can you be a bit more specific? You can read about Christology in virtually any area of theology, and in some areas of philosophy (like metaphysics).

[Cristiano]

Gospel of Mark!

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by Alterum

Can you be a bit more specific? You can read about Christology in virtually any area of theology, and in some areas of philosophy (like metaphysics).

I have a question for you that's specific. Jesus has both a divine intellect and a divine will, and, additionally, a human intellect and a human will. I understand that there is only one divine intellect and one divine will, i.e., the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same divine intellect and divine will. Even though they are persons, they do not have their own separate divine intellect and divine will.

Do you know an authoritative cite for this? Perhaps somewhere in the Summa but I can't find it (other than the article on divine simplicity which does not specifically say one divine intellect and one divine will).

[Alterum]

Originally Posted by levinas12

I have a question for you that's specific. Jesus has both a divine intellect and a divine will, and, additionally, a human intellect and a human will. I understand that there is only one divine intellect and one divine will, i.e., the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same divine intellect and divine will. Even though they are persons, they do not have their own separate divine intellect and divine will.

Do you know an authoritative cite for this? Perhaps somewhere in the Summa but I can't find it (other than the article on divine simplicity which does not specifically say one divine intellect and one divine will).

Levinas, while the Summa is authoritative in some respects, it isn't a dogmatically authoritative document (as I'm sure you know), so I'd look to Chalcedon. In its Definition of Faith, it makes an explicit anti-Nestorian claim by rejecting a two-subject Christology. Remember that Nestorius thought that the divine will of the Word, and the human will of the human subject of the hypostatic union, were separate but conjoined. The Council was reacting against Nestorianism specifically when it asserted, on the contrary, that Christ has two natures in one subject (hypostasis) with "no separation". So I don't think it's right to say that Christ had two separate wills. The Council still allows for the predication of properties like "suffering" to Christ, but they are predicated of the human nature instead of the divine nature. Does that help?

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by Alterum

Levinas, while the Summa is authoritative in some respects, it isn't a dogmatically authoritative document (as I'm sure you know), so I'd look to Chalcedon. In its Definition of Faith, it makes an explicit anti-Nestorian claim by rejecting a two-subject Christology. Remember that Nestorius thought that the divine will of the Word, and the human will of the human subject of the hypostatic union, were separate but conjoined. The Council was reacting against Nestorianism specifically when it asserted, on the contrary, that Christ has two natures in one subject (hypostasis) with "no separation". So I don't think it's right to say that Christ had two separate wills. The Council still allows for the predication of properties like "suffering" to Christ, but they are predicated of the human nature instead of the divine nature. Does that help?

I think it's de fide that Jesus had two wills (divine, human). The posting from Cristiano (#7) provides the scriptural basis - from the Agony in the Garden ("not my will ...). Jesus couldn't have said this if he had not had a human will (in addition to his divine will).

Without a human intellect and a human will, what kind of human nature would Jesus have had (and has)? Yet Jesus was not and is not a human person, only a divine person.

The theological "hinge" here is the notion of person (which equates to hypostasis). Philosophically, "person" is different from "nature". Thus, there can be 3 persons in God. But "person" can never be closed in (as in a monad). "Person" is a relation to an other, and thus is not a Cartesian center of consciousness. And "person" is flexible enough philosophically to accommodate both a human nature and a divine nature, unmixed. But that's only possible given the unusual character of the divine nature. Divine nature is totally outside the world so it can be united with a human nature without mixing, without producing a hybrid or a demi-god. Jesus's divine nature does not "damage" his human nature.

[Alterum]

Originally Posted by levinas12

I think it's de fide that Jesus had two wills (divine, human). The posting from Cristiano (#7) provides the scriptural basis - from the Agony in the Garden ("not my will ...). Jesus couldn't have said this if he had not had a human will (in addition to his divine will).

Without a human intellect and a human will, what kind of human nature would Jesus have had (and has)? Yet Jesus was not and is not a human person, only a divine person.

The theological "hinge" here is the notion of person (which equates to hypostasis). Philosophically, "person" is different from "nature". Thus, there can be 3 persons in God. But "person" can never be closed in (as in a monad). "Person" is a relation to an other, and thus is not a Cartesian center of consciousness. And "person" is flexible enough philosophically to accommodate both a human nature and a divine nature, unmixed. But that's only possible given the unusual character of the divine nature. Divine nature is totally outside the world so it can be united with a human nature without mixing, without producing a hybrid or a demi-god. Jesus's divine nature does not "damage" his human nature.

Levinas, on the contrary, I'm fairly certain that position was condemned as Nestorianism at Chalcedon (to which Definition of Faith I again refer you). Chalcedon is de fide teaching; a Scriptural citation is not. There are many other ways to account for the agony in the garden than to suppose that Christ had two wills.

If you do say that Christ had two wills, you run into the same problem as Nestorius. What is a will? In conjunction with the intellect, it's the governing principle of deliberate human acts (as Aquinas said, it's rational appetite). Nestorius thought that the person of Christ did indeed have two governing principles (one divine, one human), with the human being subordinate to the divine. Instead of a hypostatic union, in which the Word is really incarnate with no separation or confusion, the result is a prosoponic union, in which the Word permanently indwells the human subject, rather than actually becoming the human subject. This is why Nestorianism is a two-subject Christology.

Again, Christ had two natures, but not two wills. Those two natures were united without separation or confusion in the one person, Christ.

[Alindawyl]

Originally Posted by Alterum

Again, Christ had two natures, but not two wills. Those two natures were united without separation or confusion in the one person, Christ.

Christ most definitely does have both a human will and divine will. The claim that Christ has only a single will is the heresy of monothelitism. That heresy was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 475:

Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."

That section of the Catechism briefly covers the major Christological and Trinitarian heresies of the early Church, with this one near the end.

An excellent book on Christology is Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology, by Father Roch Kereszty. Here it is on Amazon.

[piejesu]

Christ most definitely does have both a human will and divine will. The claim that Christ has only a single will is the heresy of monothelitism. That heresy was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople.

Good for you Alindawyl. A person might also supplement the book by Father Roch Kereszty with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, also available at Amazon.com.

[Alterum]

Originally Posted by Alindawyl

Christ most definitely does have both a human will and divine will. The claim that Christ has only a single will is the heresy of monothelitism. That heresy was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople.

I stand corrected. Apparently Nestorianism (or what was condemned at Chalcedon) should be understood in a more nuanced way.

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by Alindawyl

Christ most definitely does have both a human will and divine will. The claim that Christ has only a single will is the heresy of monothelitism. That heresy was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 475:

Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."

That section of the Catechism briefly covers the major Christological and Trinitarian heresies of the early Church, with this one near the end.

An excellent book on Christology is Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology, by Father Roch Kereszty. Here it is on Amazon.

In addition to two wills, Jesus also had two intellects (divine, human).

I'll try to find the Kereszty book.

Let me just say that this is mindboggling. The divine intellect & will must be very different from the human intellect & will for this to work. I hope Kereszty can shed some light.

[Alindawyl]

Originally Posted by Alterum

I stand corrected. Apparently Nestorianism (or what was condemned at Chalcedon) should be understood in a more nuanced way.

Nestorianism was based on a rejection of the title theotokos for Mary. Nestorius couldn't accept that it made sense to refer to Mary as the Mother of God, because to him that meant blending the human and divine natures of Christ. He couldn't accept that a single person could possess two natures simultaneously. So he effectively claimed that Christ was a different person from the Logos, that there were two subjects in Christ. This was somewhat similar to the earlier heresy of Adoptionism. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, 20 years before Chalcedon.

Monophysitism was the heresy condemned at Chalcedon. It was an extreme reaction against Nestorianism from Eutyches, one of the most outspoken men against Nestorius at Ephesus. Eutyches thought the council didn't go far enough when condemning Nestorianism in emphasizing the fact that Christ is only one person, a single subject. He ended up pushing what became his own heresy in opposition to Nestorianism, that the two natures of Christ were blended into a new single nature after the Incarnation.

At the root of both heresies was a refusal to accept that a single person could possess two natures. Nestorius emphasized the two natures so much that he ended up claiming there must be two subjects. Eutyches emphasized the single subject so much that he ended up claiming that there must only be one nature.

Originally Posted by levinas12

In addition to two wills, Jesus also had two intellects (divine, human).

I'll try to find the Kereszty book.

Let me just say that this is mindboggling. The divine intellect & will must be very different from the human intellect & will for this to work. I hope Kereszty can shed some light.

Father Roch gives an excellent summation of the Christology of the Fathers in part 2 chapter 2 of his book. It's brief (only 28 pages) but extremely succinct and easily understood. It's fascinating to see, from our perspective over 1500 years later, how much disagreement there was back then and how many heresies arose because of a lack of words to describe the realities present in Christ. Words such as hypostasis, ousia, prosopon, physis, and the like seem straightforward to us now, given that we're post-Chalcedon. But before the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon, there was very bitter disagreement over what those words should mean when used to talk about Christ. The disagreement over the meaning of those words is the primary reason why heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, and monophysitism came about.

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by levinas12

.... Jesus also had two intellects (divine, human).

The Second Person of the Trinity continues to have two intellects. Once Jesus, the Second Person is always Jesus, is always man and God.

The Father and the Holy Spirit, however, do not have a human intellect, only a divine intellect (in fact, the numerically same divine intellect as Jesus has).

Yet the Divine Simplicity is maintained.

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by levinas12

The Second Person of the Trinity continues to have two intellects. Once Jesus, the Second Person is always Jesus, is always man and God.

The Father and the Holy Spirit, however, do not have a human intellect, only a divine intellect (in fact, the numerically same divine intellect as Jesus has).

Yet the Divine Simplicity is maintained.

How is this possible?

Because Divine nature is not like any worldly nature. It is so radically other than it is "outside" of the universe. Adding human nature to God does not make God "greater", does not "increase" God's Being. Also, adding human nature does not result in a hybrid or monster.

This is a great mystery. A very loose analogy: adding a finite number to a transfinite number does not "increase" the transfinite number.