Hypostatic Union violates law of non-contradiction

maurin · #1 Sep 13, '06, 5:22 am

Hello all,

I am in discussion with a self-described JW/Arian who claims that The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature's of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

I have searched Catholic Answers, The Encyclopedia and other sources and can find nothing.

How does one answer that properly and in no uncertain terms?

Thank you for your replies and help.

mlchance · #2 Sep 13, '06, 5:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

...The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature's of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

No, it doesn't.

The natures divine and human are not contradictory. They are different.

-- Mark L. Chance.

**mercygate** · #3 Sep 13, '06, 5:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

Hello all,

I am in discussion with a self-described JW/Arian who claims that The Doctine of the Hypostatic Union of the two nature's of Christ violates the law of non-contradiction.

I have searched Catholic Answers, The Encyclopedia and other sources and can find nothing.

How does one answer that properly and in no uncertain terms?

Thank you for your replies and help.

Wow! great question.

Why not ask Fr. Mitch Pacwa? He's on EWTN's daily show, "Open Line" today Wednesdays). You can ask by e-mail: openline@ewtn.com Be sure to note that the question is for Father P.

I THINK he will say that the hypostatic union describes a unique relationship of the human and divine natures that cannot violate the principle of non-contradiction because the natures remain two under the 'umbrella' of the single personhood. Does that make sense? I dunno. This is all beyond me. I'll tune in at 3:00 ET and see if he answers the question for you.

maurin · #4 Sep 13, '06, 5:55 am

Dear Mercygate,

Thanks for the suggestion. I do not get EWTN on my cable. If I email the question, will you watch and let me know?

**mercygate** · #5 Sep 13, '06, 6:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

Dear Mercygate,

Thanks for the suggestion. I do not get EWTN on my cable. If I email the question, will you watch and let me know?

This is a RADIO show -- and you can listen on the Internet. Go to EWTN.com and click on RADIO. Then click on "Open Line" and then on "Listen Live" at 3:00 p.m. ET. Failing that, the "Open Line" link on the RADIO tab allows you to listen to the shows for the past week. OR you can go to "LIBRARIES" : "AUDIO" : type in "Open Line" in the search box and it will take you to the list of programs. By tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday at the latest, the show will be available for listening or downloading on the computer.

Practically everything EWTN broadcasts is available to view or listen to in their audio libraries section. I don't get EWTN radio and don't have cable, so this is how I connect to EWTN.

maurin · #6 Sep 13, '06, 6:01 am

Mark,

Thank you, that is how I responded, citing the Creation Story (let us make man in Our Image and Likeness), and that our fallen human nature shares in the Divine nature because of the Cross and Resurrection.

Verbum Caro · #7 Sep 13, '06, 6:01 am

Maurin,

That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has TWO natures (Human and Divine) united in ONE personhood.

If we were to say that Christ's human nature was His Divine nature or His Divine Nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don't say that.

Since their are TWO natures there is no contradiction.

Perhaps your friend doesn't like the formulation that Christ is both God and man? That also doesn't run afoul of the principle because Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature.

Thus when we say of Christ "that is a man" and we say of Christ "that is a Divine Being" we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect.

What do you think?
(And welcome to the forums too, if you are new and not just a survivor of the great crash of '06!)

God bless,
VC

maurin · #8 Sep 13, '06, 6:03 am

Mercygate,

Modern Technology....ain't it grand!!!!

Thanks for explaining it to me. I will listen in and see!!!!!!

thanks again,

your little brother in the Lord's Heart,
m

**mercygate** · #9 Sep 13, '06, 6:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

Mercygate,

Modern Technology....ain't it grand!!!!

Thanks for explaining it to me. I will listen in and see!!!!!!

thanks again,

your little brother in the Lord's Heart,
m

Meanwhile, it looks like verbum caro and I are both on the same wavelength with this. Ain't that reassuring? Only verbum explained it better.

maurin · #10 Sep 13, '06, 6:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verbum Caro

Maurin,

That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has TWO natures (Human and Divine) united in ONE personhood.

If we were to say that Christ's human nature was His Divine nature or His Divine Nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don't say that.

Since their are TWO natures there is no contradiction.

Perhaps your friend doesn't like the formulation that Christ is both God and man? That also doesn't run afoul of the principle because Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature.

Thus when we say of Christ "that is a man" and we say of Christ "that is a Divine Being" we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect.

What do you think?
(And welcome to the forums too, if you are new and not just a survivor of the great crash of '06!)

God bless,
VC

Thank you VC. This is very helpful. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on your statement: "He is not both man and divine in the same respect?

Also, are the Divine Nature and Human Nature really opposites? I do not think so, but do not know how to make the case.

What do you think?

Verbum Caro · #11 Sep 13, '06, 6:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

Thank you VC. This is very helpful. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on your statement: "He is not both man and divine in the same respect?

You're welcome Maurin! I'm glad Mercygate and I could help a bit.

As to the above statement. . .it is crucial when dealing with the principle of non-contradiction that we include "at the same time and in the same respect". Otherwise MANY things would violate the principle (and it wouldn't be a principle at all). For instance a light bulb cannot be both on and off. It has to be one or the other. But it could be on at one time and off at another time. Thus the princple adds "at the same time".

Another example: Can I be both a poor man and a rich man? At different times? YES. At the same time? YES. At the same time and in the same respect? NO. I can be poor in respect to Bill Gates and rich in respect to a third-world countryman.

As applied to my statement about Christ. . .it is dogmatic that Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. But these are not mutually exclusive of each other. He is Divine with respect to (or when viewed under) His Divine Nature, and He is human with respect to (or when viewed under) His human nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurin

Also, are the Divine Nature and Human Nature really opposites? I do not think so, but do not know how to make the case.

Hmmm. I suppose we could answer like Aquinas often answers: Sic et non. Yes and no.

(not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction though. . .because yes in one respect no in another

)

No, in that I don't think there is really such a thing as an opposite nature. . . since nature describes the powers that a being has. And I'm not sure what "opposite" powers would be. For instance our Human nature contains the nutritive power (the power to eat and grow). What would the opposite of that be?

But in another sense Yes, human nature is as opposite to the Divine nature as you can get. . .in fact any part of creation is "opposite" the Divine nature because all creation is contigent being, whereas the Divine nature is non-contingent and eternally exists and contains its own principle of being within itself. In that sense we and all creation are mostly made up of "non-being" and are only held in being by God's will.

What do you think?
VC

maurin · #12 Sep 13, '06, 6:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verbum Caro

You're welcome Maurin! I'm glad Mercygate and I could help a bit.

As to the above statement. . .it is crucial when dealing with the principle of non-contradiction that we include "at the same time and in the same respect". Otherwise MANY things would violate the principle (and it wouldn't be a principle at all). For instance a light bulb cannot be both on and off. It has to be one or the other. But it could be on at one time and off at another time. Thus the princple adds "at the same time".

Another example: Can I be both a poor man and a rich man? At different times? YES. At the same time? YES. At the same time and in the same respect? NO. I can be poor in respect to Bill Gates and rich in respect to a third-world countryman.

As applied to my statement about Christ. . .it is dogmatic that Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. But these are not mutually exclusive of each other. He is Divine with respect to (or when viewed under) His Divine Nature, and He is human with respect to (or when viewed under) His human nature.

Hmmm. I suppose we could answer like Aquinas often answers: Sic et non. Yes and no.

(not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction though. . .because yes in one respect no in another

)

No, in that I don't think there is really such a thing as an opposite nature. . . since nature describes the powers that a being has. And I'm not sure what "opposite" powers would be. For instance our Human nature contains the nutritive power (the power to eat and grow). What would the opposite of that be?

But in another sense Yes, human nature is as opposite to the Divine nature as you can get. . .in fact any part of creation is "opposite" the Divine nature because all creation is contigent being, whereas the Divine nature is non-contingent and eternally exists and contains its own principle of being within itself. In that sense we and all creation are mostly made up of "non-being" and are only held in being by God's will.

What do you think?
VC

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but YOU are wonderful!!

I think that I mischose my word: "opposite" is not describing what I mean.

Man is the only creature that God made in His Image and Likeness, so I think that is what I am trying to get at. If we are made in His Image and Likeness, does that imply a sort of "sharing" or "participation" in His Divinity already, in which no other creature shares?

I really wish I had the vocabulary to explain myself [i]exactly[i], so I appreciate you bearing with me.

m

Verbum Caro · #13 Sep 13, '06, 7:00 am

Maurin,

I'm glad that I was able to contribute.

As far as our participation in the Divine nature. . .well I think I understand what you mean, but it would probably be best to see what some other board members, who are more knowledgeable in that subject, post in reply to that specific question.

I was only responding to how the two nature in Christ are not a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. I will be interested in your continued discussion with the other board members regarding how our creation and the hypostatic union relate to our participation in the Divine nature. Maybe I'll throw in my two cents too. . .or half a cent.

God bless you!
VC

havemercy · #14 Sep 13, '06, 7:00 am

It is important to note that hypostatic union does not imply that Christ is only God, and also only man. It implies that Christ is fully God and also fully man. There is a distinction.

maurin · #15 Sep 13, '06, 7:21 am

Verbum Caro, Mercygate and have mercy:

Thank you all for taking the time to help me on this. I am taking these answers, and giving credit where credit is due

! to the other board now: catholicforum.com

I do hope we can continue the discussion about human nature in relation to Exodus: being made in the Image and Likeness of God before the fall.

Thank you all.

your little brother in wisdom and the Lord's Heart,
maurin