Nature of the Incarnation of God The Son

I’ll pose my question best I can:

From what I know, God the Son is considered to be fully God and divine. Therefore having the attributes of omnipresence and omnipotence and such…Therefore if someone wished to pray or speak to God the Son they could technically do it from anywhere…

Now from what I understand, upon taking a human nature, the divine nature was in no way diminished or lost: the attributes of omnipresence or omnipotence should not be lost. So if an angel/human wished to speak to God the Son they could still do so (and God The Son could respond to human/angel freely) however, the new testament gospels seem to indicate that after the incarnation, the only point of communication would be at ‘Jesus of Nazereth’ s current physical location. What is the response to this?

The second part of my question comes to the suffering. I know that the catholic church rejects the more ‘Protestant’ idea that Jesus had to be paid to the devil as he has ownership over us or that God is extremely angry with us and demands a sacrifice to make him happy. So when the (english) Bible uses words such as ransom and debt, what is inner meaning of this?

I cannot give you an official response…however, it seems to me that the Gospels record the human activities of Jesus Christ which is why we would pay attention to Jesus’ physical location. On the other hand, at various physical locations, Jesus, as God, performs miracles. He also refers to Himself in relationship with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. The Catholic teaching is Jesus Christ is True God and True Man.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition explains the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ (Hypostatic Union) in a variety of paragraphs such as paragraphs 464-483, including cross-references in the margins. For me, chapter 6, Gospel of John is the most important.

The second part of my question comes to the suffering. I know that the catholic church rejects the more ‘Protestant’ idea that Jesus had to be paid to the devil as he has ownership over us or that God is extremely angry with us and demands a sacrifice to make him happy. So when the (english) Bible uses words such as ransom and debt, what is inner meaning of this?

I would have to read the context for the words ransom and debt. Sometimes, reading an entire chapter is necessary to understand a single verse. For me, I am eternally grateful that Jesus did what He did by hanging bloody on a cross.

My apology for not being more helpful.:o

Links to Catholic teachings

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Yes, this is what we believe. Jesus retained His divine nature and thus retained, in His Divinity, all the Divine attributes.
CCC #469 …He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother

however, the new testament gospels seem to indicate that after the incarnation, the only point of communication would be at ‘Jesus of Nazereth’ s current physical location. What is the response to this?

John 10:30 “I and the Father are One”
(the Father is omnipresent)

John 5:18 … because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God. 5:19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,** the Son **can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.

:thumbsup:

Our Lord didn’t come the first time in glory, but took the form of a servant, so we would believe by faith and love him on his own merits. The revelation of his divinity was gradual, so even most of his followers may not have known they could pray to him from a distance. And just because it’s not recorded, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

There are different theories of how the atonement worked – ransom, substitution, mystical solidarity, etc. All of them contain truth, but no analogy is exact. That’s why it’s an analogy. If you press the analogy too far you get in trouble.

Fr. William Most, a theologian, discusses this in one of his talks on reparation.

– St. Irenaeus, Origen, and St. Ambrose said that the debt of sin was a ransom paid to the devil, while St. Gregory Nazianzen said this was not possible, and others since have followed him.

– St. Anselm tied the concept of debt to that of making satisfaction or restitution for sin, in other words balancing the scales of justice.

As far as I understand it, there are several things which Christ “purchased” by his sacrifice, including giving God due honor and repairing the offense against him, restoring man’s friendship with God, and restoring the objective moral order. This “price” was paid by Christ’s Incarnation, life of obedience, sufferings, and above all by the shedding of his blood. Was it paid to God? Perhaps, but I think that may be taking the analogy too far.

Scripture says that the “wrath” of God remains on the unrepentant sinner, and the Council of Trent that Christ’s sacrifice “appeases” God; but again these are inexact human terms. To take them literally leads to problems like the ones you mention.

As I understand them, “wrath” refers to God’s absolute opposition to evil, and the consequences of allying ourselves with evil; “appeasing” God refers to the merits which Christ won and can apply to us.

We use easy to understand terminology because they get the point across vividly, and because not everyone has the time to do doctoral work on divine impassibility.

So much I have gleaned from Catholic writers on the subject. For more on this see the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Atonement”.

The debt part of the question:
What is a debt? Something you owe because you made an agreement to repay something. Also, something you owe because you took what is not yours, thus have something that is not yours but belongs to the person from whom you took it.

Sinning is like the second: The sin is taking and enjoying. The result is that the owner no longer has it nor enjoys it.

Long after the stealing, you still have in your soul the history of the enjoyment and satisfaction of your theft, you have both guilt and injustice. You have guilt (you are guilty of having done the sin), and injustice (you still possess the understanding of satisfaction from the use of what was stolen and the understanding that the satisfaction is missing from the life of the one from whom you stole it).

A sacrifice was meant to atone for the existing injustice, the imbalance of what belongs to whom. So you do without some satisfaction of your own (a spotless lamb from your flock which is worth many moments of future satisfaction to you that you will now not have when you give it up).

As for God, what do we steal from him? Life. We do all sorts of things and everything to make ourselves alive, happy, satisfied, to keep death and suffering far from ourselves. And we do not wait in patience to receive life and all good from God. We, like Adam and Eve, look at what appears good to consume and good for some physical benefit, and then take it and eat it. We do not remember God saying, “Here, eat from this tree, and this one, and also this one and that one, and do this and do that.” and then do what he says.

We have the satisfactions that don’t belong to us but not the ones he gives. How can we return our stolen life to God? One way would be by dying, but what value is there in returning stolen life, stolen from things he never intended to be life-giving? So we give “spotless lambs”, but we continue to steal, so we give them repeatedly. What can end the cycle? If we, ourselves, were alive from him, and never stole again, only one sacrifice would be needed. But what sacrifice can both return what was not ours and also make us new and virtuous? That is Jesus, who did both. He returned the satisfaction of life to God, his life that was not stolen (in the desert with Satan he did not satisfy his need of life by turning stones to bread, he did not satisfy his need to be king by worshipping Satan, and he did not satisfy his need to be sure of life by throwing himself from the temple pinnacle). He gave back to God what we stole, and it was satisfactory to God because he gave back real life, un-stolen life. His life was returned to him, and he shares it with us, giving us himself, his Spirit, his Father, in Baptism and in his presence with and in us. He gives us gifts, the Virtues, so that we may be like him. Our life now is perseverance in being like him: putting off the old nature that takes life for itself; seeking his Kingdom and his Goodness (righteousness); self-sacrifice so that others may have the goodness and life he gives; etc.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.