If you look in your Catechism, you will find in Chapter 2, Article III, No. III.,;
464 “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falisified it.”
465 “The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity.”
This is what the Church says on the matter and I thought it would be good to have this base line in an effort to avoid word play.
Thanks so much.
Yeah, the problem here really is semantics. That’s why it’s amazing how carefully conceived and worded are the Church’s statements, leaving as little room for confusion as possible.
When I say that Christ has two natures, divine and human, I do not mean that he is somehow part divine and part human. His nature is–in a mysterious way–fully divine and *fully human. *And yet he is the second divine person of the Trinity.
Fulton Sheen said, “One who and two whats.” Christ is one divine person, with fully divine and fully human natures. The Church avoids wording it as I have, especially back then, because of the confusion that could be brought about, namely, that Christ is somehow not fully human. I suppose the politically correct version does not label His personhood: “Christ is one person, fully human and fully divine.”