I found this sentence in a paper written by a contemporary Jesuit:

The only God there is is the God who speaks his divine Word into the mortal flesh of Jesus of Nazareth and raises him from the dead, and we bear witness that this is the supreme interpretative sign of the reality and character of God.

I have bolded & italicized the part that I want to discuss.

Is this not a heresy? Does it not in some way deny the hypostatic union, that Jesus of Nazareth is the divine Word of God? At the very least it seems to imply that there was a purely human "Jesus of Nazareth" who at some time or other became one with the divine Word, when I am sure that Catholic doctrine states that the Incarnation of the Word ("the Word became flesh") occurs right at the moment of the (immaculate) conception of Jesus, and therefore there never was a solely human Jesus of Nazareth who then became divine or took on divinity.

I found this sentence in a paper written by a contemporary Jesuit:

Quote

The only God there is is the God who speaks his divine Word into the mortal flesh of Jesus of Nazareth and raises him from the dead, and we bear witness that this is the supreme interpretative sign of the reality and character of God.

I have bolded & italicized the part that I want to discuss.

Is this not a heresy? Does it not in some way deny the hypostatic union, that Jesus of Nazareth is the divine Word of God? At the very least it seems to imply that there was a purely human "Jesus of Nazareth" who at some time or other became one with the divine Word, when I am sure that Catholic doctrine states that the Incarnation of the Word ("the Word became flesh") occurs right at the moment of the (immaculate) conception of Jesus,

Be careful to use "Incarnation" when speaking of Jesus because the Blessed Virgin Mary is alone in her title of the Immaculate Conception.  True, the incarnation of Jesus was 'immaculate' but people get confused really easily, and I have known moderns who thought that the I.C. refers to Jesus in the womb of Mary, and they get upset when I try to correct them.  Also, the word "conception" might be inappropriate for Jesus because of the normal implications associated with that process.

and therefore there never was a solely human Jesus of Nazareth who then became divine or took on divinity.

The language you quote seems a little goofy to me, but what can you expect from a modern Jesuit?

What he's referring to seems to be the rising to life again of Jesus at the Resurrection.

But saying that the only God there is speaks his divine Word into the mortal flesh of Jesus of Nazareth and raises him from the dead, leaves room, as you say, for misunderstanding because it is ambiguous language.  

Ambiguity is the cornerstone of Vat.II if not one of its most problematic features.

It seems to me that moderns like this take some kind of strange pleasure in dreaming up new ways of describing important events but I don't find anything wonderful in their silly efforts to make something mysterious into something weird or confusing.

The effect of good writing about the Resurrection should not leave gobs of room for heretics to quote your words to their nefarious advantage, and you have pointed out just what that could be here, that it could be used to assert that Jesus BECAME divine or whatever.  

For example, the Mormons believe that they become a 'god' of their own world out in space somewhere after they die.  How would any Mormon be offended if someone told him that the divine Word would be spoken into his mortal flesh and he would become god of all he surveys, or some such words?

.