I received this article as a very clear confirmation of my scripture journey through this season. This is a consumate and timely gift from the Holt Spirit. With joy I take it to heart. Thankyou.
“More than any prophet or patriarch, Christ has a unique relationship with the Father that He reveals to man what He has already seen, both in His divinity and in His humanity. It is precisely this humanity that allows Him to communicate to mankind on a human level. The Son reveals to us the inner will of the Father.”
In this instance, I would have to say that to describe the disposition our Savior shares with our Father as being a mere “relationship”, which is actually a protestant substitute for their actual state which can only be one of a consummately magnificent “communion”, is at a minimum so pitiful that it would unfortunately be at best in grave and misleading error. I recall while in contemplation of our God many years ago being advised that even Satan has a very personal relationship with both our Father and Savior. It’s just all bad. The mutual bond that Jesus shares with our Father, of course defies description in human terms but if a reasonable attempt was to be made, I would say it would be, at a minimum, an ecstatic communion where an incessant and mutually immersive bond between the of the Persons of the holy Trinity occurs where the Holy Spirit is the both the Vehicle and the Enabler of that union. Since from within our Father is origin and source of all that is true goodness, virtue, and love, it is this unimaginable Love, which is actually the living substance of our God, that drives the beatific union within the Holy Trinity and emerges from that union to permeate our own mutual union with each of them separately and also from within their unspeakable union. Whether one believes in the validity of this precise description or not, the union we speak of here is light years more magnificent and exclusive than any of us ever seem to contemplate as a result of our perennially pitiful expectations of the insatiable hunger of our God for us, and yet it is that very union which is fully available to each of us and to our Church at any time we choose to allow. In essence, it is precisely the humanity of Jesus that enables our Savior to communicate to mankind on the exponentially elevated level of the Beatific Vision. It is the unique personal vision of God that He imparts to those who have chosen entry into the consummate vulnerability of communion with Him required for our Sainthood and entry into Heaven that defines the precise means of attainment of genuine sanctity for us. In this manner, if we will allow, our Savior reveals to us from within our communion with Him, the utterly magnificent inner will of our Father.
“Peter’s confession, which takes place over the feast of Atonement, is an explicit confession of Christ’s dual identity: He is both the Messiah and the Divine Son.”
I have to wonder if the blending of these two dispositions can be can really be identified as a dual identity since these are not two independent dispositions or vocations of Jesus. His being the Messiah seems to be totally dependent upon His eternal disposition of being the Divine Son of our Father (it seems to appear that Jesus was our Fathers Son in eternity long before there we managed to create the need for a Messiah) and therefore I would conclude are both are united in one identity. Wouldn’t His being the Messiah be a consequence rather than a parallel vocation of His being the Son of our Father, or am I just mistaken?
Respectfully, I think you are splitting hairs in trying to draw a distinction between relationship and communion. Both are true in their own ways and do not exclude the other. Relation is actually a more traditional term for the persons of the Trinity as they are known in their unique persons through their relation to one another. So much so that St. Thomas teaches that real distinction in the Trinity only comes from relative opposition, see ST Ia q 30 a2. So if you want to call St. Thomas a protestant... I guess that's an opinion to have.
To your question, I'm not sure I would say that the two are mutually dependent on each other. The Son didn't have to be the messiah in a world that didn't need saving. According to the Thomist school, the Son would not have become incarnate had it not been for sin, thus, His identity as messiah would not be there.
My purpose in highlighting the two is because within Jewish tradition, the Messiah was not necessarily going to be a divine figure. Some believed he would be but not all. By Peter's Confession, we see these two affirmations of Christ, He is the Messiah but He is also the Son of God. Peter acknowledges belief in both. I would wager there were many who only believed the first at that time without believing the second.
Thank you for your most insightful answer to my question. Makes perfect sense.
On the first point, I admit I am somewhat of a Trad, a condition that can send Catholics fleeing for an exit. In my younger days, I could only look on as the resulting effects of Vat II systematically sucked the lifeblood from the fervent Church I loved as a child. This occurred, not because of the profession of any outright lies at first but what appeared at the time to be small but very seductive departures of imprecision from our traditional teachings in altered language, language meaning, and content. Lenin would have been proud I think. When I characterized the use of the term relationship it was grounded in what was then the contemporary deployment of the term, not necessary the historical usage at all. The manner of use was one of those glaring and wholly insufficient imprecisions, where the communion with God of the faithful and the Communion of Saints that seem so rarely even mentioned today were the heartwood of the Catholic disposition. I must admit that from a purely theological point of view that you are entirely correct of course about the Thomistic interpretation of the matter but in the 1960’s the term “relationship”, as in addressing the concept of one’s need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, as they say, was adopted first by evangelical protestant organizations and then by Charismatics, and soon after was adopted by the Catholic Church, seemingly at large as it remains today. This was as a result of what I was aware even then was the adoption of this insufficient and imprecise doctrine by Cardinal Sunens and others including having the tacit approval of the Pope of that time. I must also admit that I know of the consummate insufficiency of adopting a so called personal relationship only as a result of private revelation so this conviction is hardly binding upon anyone else. What I can say is that I was an observer and a party to these events going back to the 1940‘s and have counted among friends a number of theologians still associated with them, for good or ill.
If I am splitting hairs in my interpretation here the hair in question is light years greater in breadth than most perceive as you yourself will eventually observe in an encounter that will render your accumulated interpretations senseless as it did in my own case. I will pray for you for a hastening of that day. In the meantime, you are included in my prayers. not for hoping that you will see God in the way I see Him but that you will find yourself sufficiently destitute, vulnerable, and at risk to see Him for yourself. I cannot think of another sensible way to resolve the issues that have been addressed in this discussion because it is only the personal vision of God He offers each of His Faithful that can precisely define the true nature of our communion with Him.
I appreciate your prayers for my limitations. No theologian can know God fully. We are finite and He is infinite. I embrace my destitution to that end and rely on Him to enlighten the darkness of my mind.
I am sympathetic to precision. This is why I used the term that I did. Relation is the most appropriate term to use, regardless of whether it’s been co-opted or not. I take nothing for myself, I will follow the Angelic Doctor in his usage as it is good enough for me.
Thank you for your exchange. It hope it was edifying for you as it was for me.
Wonderful reflection. I am going to read it again and again lol.
Thanks brother! A blessed Triduum to you.
I received this article as a very clear confirmation of my scripture journey through this season. This is a consumate and timely gift from the Holt Spirit. With joy I take it to heart. Thankyou.
Thank you for reading!
Thank you
Beautiful 🙏🏻🙌🏻
Thank you!
Thank you so much for this post.
“More than any prophet or patriarch, Christ has a unique relationship with the Father that He reveals to man what He has already seen, both in His divinity and in His humanity. It is precisely this humanity that allows Him to communicate to mankind on a human level. The Son reveals to us the inner will of the Father.”
In this instance, I would have to say that to describe the disposition our Savior shares with our Father as being a mere “relationship”, which is actually a protestant substitute for their actual state which can only be one of a consummately magnificent “communion”, is at a minimum so pitiful that it would unfortunately be at best in grave and misleading error. I recall while in contemplation of our God many years ago being advised that even Satan has a very personal relationship with both our Father and Savior. It’s just all bad. The mutual bond that Jesus shares with our Father, of course defies description in human terms but if a reasonable attempt was to be made, I would say it would be, at a minimum, an ecstatic communion where an incessant and mutually immersive bond between the of the Persons of the holy Trinity occurs where the Holy Spirit is the both the Vehicle and the Enabler of that union. Since from within our Father is origin and source of all that is true goodness, virtue, and love, it is this unimaginable Love, which is actually the living substance of our God, that drives the beatific union within the Holy Trinity and emerges from that union to permeate our own mutual union with each of them separately and also from within their unspeakable union. Whether one believes in the validity of this precise description or not, the union we speak of here is light years more magnificent and exclusive than any of us ever seem to contemplate as a result of our perennially pitiful expectations of the insatiable hunger of our God for us, and yet it is that very union which is fully available to each of us and to our Church at any time we choose to allow. In essence, it is precisely the humanity of Jesus that enables our Savior to communicate to mankind on the exponentially elevated level of the Beatific Vision. It is the unique personal vision of God that He imparts to those who have chosen entry into the consummate vulnerability of communion with Him required for our Sainthood and entry into Heaven that defines the precise means of attainment of genuine sanctity for us. In this manner, if we will allow, our Savior reveals to us from within our communion with Him, the utterly magnificent inner will of our Father.
“Peter’s confession, which takes place over the feast of Atonement, is an explicit confession of Christ’s dual identity: He is both the Messiah and the Divine Son.”
I have to wonder if the blending of these two dispositions can be can really be identified as a dual identity since these are not two independent dispositions or vocations of Jesus. His being the Messiah seems to be totally dependent upon His eternal disposition of being the Divine Son of our Father (it seems to appear that Jesus was our Fathers Son in eternity long before there we managed to create the need for a Messiah) and therefore I would conclude are both are united in one identity. Wouldn’t His being the Messiah be a consequence rather than a parallel vocation of His being the Son of our Father, or am I just mistaken?
Respectfully, I think you are splitting hairs in trying to draw a distinction between relationship and communion. Both are true in their own ways and do not exclude the other. Relation is actually a more traditional term for the persons of the Trinity as they are known in their unique persons through their relation to one another. So much so that St. Thomas teaches that real distinction in the Trinity only comes from relative opposition, see ST Ia q 30 a2. So if you want to call St. Thomas a protestant... I guess that's an opinion to have.
To your question, I'm not sure I would say that the two are mutually dependent on each other. The Son didn't have to be the messiah in a world that didn't need saving. According to the Thomist school, the Son would not have become incarnate had it not been for sin, thus, His identity as messiah would not be there.
My purpose in highlighting the two is because within Jewish tradition, the Messiah was not necessarily going to be a divine figure. Some believed he would be but not all. By Peter's Confession, we see these two affirmations of Christ, He is the Messiah but He is also the Son of God. Peter acknowledges belief in both. I would wager there were many who only believed the first at that time without believing the second.
Thank you for your most insightful answer to my question. Makes perfect sense.
On the first point, I admit I am somewhat of a Trad, a condition that can send Catholics fleeing for an exit. In my younger days, I could only look on as the resulting effects of Vat II systematically sucked the lifeblood from the fervent Church I loved as a child. This occurred, not because of the profession of any outright lies at first but what appeared at the time to be small but very seductive departures of imprecision from our traditional teachings in altered language, language meaning, and content. Lenin would have been proud I think. When I characterized the use of the term relationship it was grounded in what was then the contemporary deployment of the term, not necessary the historical usage at all. The manner of use was one of those glaring and wholly insufficient imprecisions, where the communion with God of the faithful and the Communion of Saints that seem so rarely even mentioned today were the heartwood of the Catholic disposition. I must admit that from a purely theological point of view that you are entirely correct of course about the Thomistic interpretation of the matter but in the 1960’s the term “relationship”, as in addressing the concept of one’s need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, as they say, was adopted first by evangelical protestant organizations and then by Charismatics, and soon after was adopted by the Catholic Church, seemingly at large as it remains today. This was as a result of what I was aware even then was the adoption of this insufficient and imprecise doctrine by Cardinal Sunens and others including having the tacit approval of the Pope of that time. I must also admit that I know of the consummate insufficiency of adopting a so called personal relationship only as a result of private revelation so this conviction is hardly binding upon anyone else. What I can say is that I was an observer and a party to these events going back to the 1940‘s and have counted among friends a number of theologians still associated with them, for good or ill.
If I am splitting hairs in my interpretation here the hair in question is light years greater in breadth than most perceive as you yourself will eventually observe in an encounter that will render your accumulated interpretations senseless as it did in my own case. I will pray for you for a hastening of that day. In the meantime, you are included in my prayers. not for hoping that you will see God in the way I see Him but that you will find yourself sufficiently destitute, vulnerable, and at risk to see Him for yourself. I cannot think of another sensible way to resolve the issues that have been addressed in this discussion because it is only the personal vision of God He offers each of His Faithful that can precisely define the true nature of our communion with Him.
My very best to you
I appreciate your prayers for my limitations. No theologian can know God fully. We are finite and He is infinite. I embrace my destitution to that end and rely on Him to enlighten the darkness of my mind.
I am sympathetic to precision. This is why I used the term that I did. Relation is the most appropriate term to use, regardless of whether it’s been co-opted or not. I take nothing for myself, I will follow the Angelic Doctor in his usage as it is good enough for me.
Thank you for your exchange. It hope it was edifying for you as it was for me.
Of course it was, Andrew. You are uncommonly charitable to someone who must seem like quite a pain.
I appreciate that. God Bless you.