This post is a follow-up to my previous post: Fr. Ryan Erlenbush versus Pope John Paul II

Fr. Ryan has now replied, in one of his comments here, to my previous post. His reply is lengthy, so I won’t quote the whole text. He claims that Pope John Paul II held the same view as he expresses, based on this quote from the same general audience:

“The Holy Spirit instilled the fullness of grace in Christ, for the personal union of the human nature with the Word of God, for the extreme nobility of his soul and for his sanctifying and salvific mission for the whole human race.”

And he claims that the quotes I used were taken out of context. However, I provided a link to the whole text of the Pope’s audience, and Fr. Ryan did not.

First, any reader can see for himself the context, as the whole text of the audience is short and online here. Second, it is his quote above that is out of context, since, after saying the fullness of grace was given to the human nature of Christ, Pope John Paul II adds:

However, the fullness of grace in Jesus was in proportion to his age; there was always fullness, but a fullness which increased as he grew in age. The same can be said of the wisdom which Christ had from the beginning in the fullness proper to the period of childhood. As he advanced in age, this fullness grew in him to a proportionate degree.

So Christ was full in grace at all ages, from conception, but what constitutes fullness of grace for an adult is greater than for a child. As Jesus advanced in age, “this fullness grew in him to a proportionate degree”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches a similar interpretation of the passage from Scripture that is at issue here:

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 472)

The Divine Nature is infinite perfection and therefore can never change. But the human nature of Christ is finite perfection, and therefore, as his human nature changed and grew, the fullness of that perfection could increase. For the human nature of Christ is like our human nature in all things, but sin. Thus, his human nature could also increase in wisdom. He had perfect wisdom as a child, and perfect wisdom as an adult, but the latter is greater than the former.

Fr. Ryan also states: “It is clear that the Venerable Pontiff does not refer to ‘increase in grace’ in the strict theological sense of the term.” But this assertion is patently false. The blindness and obstinacy of Fr. Ryan to magisterial teaching, theological truth, and especially to correction is astounding. He reads the clear teaching of Pope John Paul II and then claims it says the opposite of what is plainly stated. He is a blind guide, like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time.

Now as I said, Fr. Ryan’s position is not heretical; the problem is that he continues to accuse the opposing point of view of heresy. He goes so far as to say, in his comment about Pope John Paul II’s audience, that the position that asserts a substantial increase in grace in the human nature of Christ, “would lead to a heresy” (by which he means that the position implies a heresy). But if you read the general audience, Pope John Paul II is in fact saying, very clearly, that there is a substantial increase in grace and in wisdom. The Pontiff does not say that this increase was only “an increase in the way in which the Holy Spirit worked in Christ’s humanity and manifested the mission of the Savior”, as Fr. Ryan claims.

The holy Pontiff’s position is consistent with what the CCC teaches and consistent with Sacred Scripture. But Fr. Ryan, after reading what the Pope taught in his general audience, continues to accuse that theological position of implying heresy. So, in effect, Fr. Ryan Erlenbush is accusing Pope John Paul II of heresy. Fr. Ryan treats his own understanding of Christology as if it were dogma, and therefore he does not accept correction even from Pope John Paul II.

Note to Fr. Ryan: when you refer to a theologian and his work in your posts, you ought to give the name of the theologian and a reference as to where his work can be found.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.