1

Bernard Lonergan: On The Ontological and Psychological Constitution of Christ.

What is he trying to accomplish?

Why is it important?
How is he going about it? – Most Important.

Aim:
What Bernard Lonergan set out to do in his The Ontological and Psychological
Constitution of Christ was to give a systematic explication of the one hypostasis, two
natures Christology of the council of Chalcedon. At Chalcedon, the Fathers rejected
Nestorius (two persons Christology) when the espoused the one person Christology. They
also rejected Monophysitism (one nature Christology), when they espoused the two
natures Christology.
So, Lonergan sets before himself, the task of making an explication of that
mystery in which, in his own words, “the infinite and the finite are in actual fact united in
one and the same Christ.” (p.107). He went about the work in four basic moments. In the
first moment, he recalled “the revealed truth from which our principal theological
understanding begins and in which it terminates.”(Ibid) Next, he resolved this truth into
its divine reasons and its created causes. Then, he considered by what reason the two
natures and one person can really come together into one subsistent being. Lastly, he used
the principle of the union to systematically deduce other relevant truths.

Moments:
THE DOGMA OF THE INCARNATION
Here Lonergan merely reiterates the traditional Chalcedonian teaching on the nature and
person of Christ. Christ is both truly God and truly man. The one person of the divine
Word subsists in two natures, divine and human. The union of the two natures is in the
person and on the basis of the person. Lonergan also notes that it is the long standing
position among theologians that Christ is one supposit, one being, one reality.

RESOLUTION INTO REASONS (GOD) AND CAUSES (CREATURE)

Reason: Potency to assume and the Act of assuming: On the side of the subject, the
potency to assume is common to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (p.111). So it is possible
for all and each of the persons to become incarnate. However, the act of assuming
belongs only to the Son, since only the Son has assumed another nature.
But how did this assumption come about? Lonergan explains. Infinite being
through what is entitatively the same act of knowing knows not only necessary but also
contingent beings. Through what is entitatively the same act of willing, it wills not only
necessary but also contingent beings. So, it is solely through the same act of being that
Infinite being is not only what it is necessarily but also is what it has contingently
become.
The divine knowledge of necessary and contingent beings is really one because
both are had through the same act, and the divine willing of necessary and contingent
beings are really one because both are had through the same act. So also in the Word, ‘to
be God’ and ‘to be man’ are really one because it is through the same act of being that the
Word is both God and man.
 2

Therefore , the real union of the divine and human natures in Christ is grounded
upon and constituted by the divine act of existence of the Word. It is through this one act
of existence (Verbi esse divinum) that the one and the same person is both necessarily
God and has contingently become man. In other words, the infinite act of existence of the
Son is the intrinsic constitutive reason and cause of the hypostatic union. (pp.131 – 133).
The hypostatic union is a union in the person and on the basis of the person.

Cause: Potency and Act in that which was assumed. On the part of the object to be
assumed, it is possible for it to be assumed because the potency to be assumed is in its
nature. Otherwise, it would not actually be assumed. (p.113). Similarly, the act on the side
of the object to be assumed is in that nature that has in fact been assumed.
Obediential Potency (potentia obidientialis): This capability of being assumed is nothing
other than the obediential potency to assumption. This obediential potency is there
because every nature is obedient to God’s bidding so that nature will become whatever
God might will.
Since Lonergan upholds the Chalcedonian view that Christ is only one person
against the Nestorian two hypostasis, he has to explain how Christ was truly human
without there being a human person in the hypostatic union. To do this, Lonergan makes
the distinction between human essence as a natural potency to its own proper act of
existence and that same essence as an obediential potency to the hypostatic union. The
actuation of a natural potency, he notes, precludes the actuation of obediential potency.
Thus, “if there is a human person, then the hypostatic union, which is union not of two
persons but a union in and on the basis of a divine person, is precluded.”(Ibid). Given
this, Lonergan explains, “the obediential potency available for hypostatic union consists
in an individual essence that lacks its own proper act of existence (essentia individuali
sine proprio esse).” (Ibid).
Now, one may object that if the human essence as obediential potency that was
available for the hypostatic union lacked its own proper act of existence, then the human
essence of Christ was not real. Lonergan anticipates this objection when he points out that
this secondary act of existence (of the human essence) is not required for the reality of the
human essence of Christ. This is because, the human essence of Christ did not need any
other actuating principle apart from the divine person. The human essence of Christ is a
real principle of being and what is already a real principle does not need anything else to
become real.
We can attempt a conclusion thus; there is the act of assuming on the part of the
assuming subject. There is the obediential potency to be assumed on the part of the
assumed object. The principle of union in that assumption is the infinite act of existence
of the Word. Thus the hypostatic union is a union both in and on the basis of the person of
the Word. However, there are two natures because Christ is both God and man. Union of
the two natures does not bring about a change in the person of the Son because it is by the
same act of being that the Son is necessarily God and has contingently become human.
EXAMINATION OF OTHER OPINIONS
To shed further light on what he has been doing, Lonergan considers the opinions of
some theologians who have tried to explain Chalcedonian Christology. He noted that the
opinions of these theologians labors under certain difficulties. Without intending to, but
 3

given their analogies and methodology, these theologians, in their opinions, tilted
dangerously towards either Nestorianism or Monophysitism.

DEDUCTIONS AND CONCLUSION

Having thus concluded that the intrinsic constitutive reason and cause of the hypostatic
union is the infinite act of the existence of the Son, Lonergan employed the conclusion as
a basis for deducing other relevant truths of our faith. He encapsulates the 27 deductions
he made in the statements that “ … there was not truth for us to understand other than that
enunciated by John, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ and repeated in the statement of
Chalcedon that one and the same is both God and man. No sole cause of this union have
we found other than that sole act of existence that St Thomas and his followers have
always recognized in Christ.” (p.155).