Errors that need correcting!

[John_of_Woking]

Ahimsa:

If Jesus had doubts on the cross, asking the Father why He had forsaken Him, then that would imply that Jesus also had to have faith, at least during certain times in His life. Perhaps Jesus’ experience of the Beatific Vision was not continuous, but appeared spontaneously, over intervals during His lifetime. Perhaps it was during the absence of the Beatific Vision on the cross that Jesus had thoughts of doubt and of being forsaken.

Let us examine Jesus’ cry of dereliction. It is more a Cry of anguished Trust than Faith. Jesus did not need Faith like we need Faith due to his Divine Personhood. That is just an opinion. I hope it doesn’t smack of Docetism!

I picked this up from a Carmelite website…

Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22:

Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.  13 They open wide their mouth at me,  As a ravening and a roaring lion.  14 I am poured out like water,  And all my bones are out of joint;   My heart is like wax;  It is melted within me.  15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;  And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.  16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

 The term 'dogs' was used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles (cf. Matt. 15:21-28).  His heart has melted within Him (v. 14).   During the crucifixion process, the blood loss causes the heart to beat harder and harder and become extremely fatigued.  Dehydration occurs (v. 15).  Verses 16b-18 speak of piercing His hands and feet and dividing his clothing by casting lots.   This is exactly what happen as described in Matt. 27:35.
 Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before Christ was born.  At that time, crucifixion had not yet been invented.  Actually, the Phoenician's developed it and Rome borrowed the agonizing means of execution from them.   So, when Rome ruled over Israel, it became the Roman means of capital punishment imposed upon the Jews whose biblical means of execution was stoning.  Nevertheless, Jesus is pointing to the scriptures to substantiate His messianic mission.

A further comment

 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son.  It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil.  Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away.  At that time, the Son may have cried out.
 One thing is for sure.  We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross.  The physical pain was immense.   The spiritual one must have been even greater.
 That shows us clearly how much God loves us.

 

[RSiscoe]

Ahimsa:

If Jesus had doubts on the cross, asking the Father why He had forsaken Him, then that would imply that Jesus also had to have faith, at least during certain times in His life. Perhaps Jesus’ experience of the Beatific Vision was not continuous, but appeared spontaneously, over intervals during His lifetime. Perhaps it was during the absence of the Beatific Vision on the cross that Jesus had thoughts of doubt and of being forsaken.

This is my explanation for that. I think there are two reasons Jesus spoke those words. If you read the writings of the saints (John of the cross, for example) they speak of felling abandoned by God for certain periods of time. God does does not truly abandon them, but draws back from them on the level of their since, so that they do not “feel” God’s presents. They are not truly abandoned, but rather feel abandoned. I think Jesus wanted to suffer as much as He could on the cross. Therefore, to increase His suffering, He allowed Himself to experience what so many saints have: He felt abandoned by God. I believe that is one reason why Jesus said what He did.

Another reason, I believe, was as one last call to the Jewish people who were standing near. The Jews knew the Pslams by heart. They used to sign them as we do songs, so they were very familiar with them.

Psalm 21 (or 22, depending on the translation), predicts the crucifixion. It speaks of Jesus being nailed to the cross; it speaks of the mocking Him; of casting lots for His clothes, etc. In other words, what the Psalm describes was taking place. So, when Jesus said “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me”, He could have easily recalled to thier mind that these are the beginning of Psalm 21, which would have brought the rest of the psalm to their mind. They would then see that what the Psalm predicted was taking place before their very eyes.

I believe this was a last attempt at calling out to those Jews who stood near the cross.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

Well, Jesus was like us in that he had a human nature and human soul, but He was unlike us in that He was God.

Jesus Christ is a Divine Person - the second person of the Blessed Trinity - who took to Himself a human nature; but Jesus remained a Divine Person. Jesus is one person, with two natures. The person of Jesus is God. That is how He is different than us.

When a human is in the state of grace, they are a human person, who becomes a “partaker of the Divine nature” (1st Peter). We are humans but we participate in the divine life of God. With Jesus it was the opposite, He was a Divine Person with a human nature. The difference is that Jesus is God, and we are not.

This is all true but it does not change the fact that humans have faith.

Jesus was both Divine and Human, two natures. The Divine nature does not alleviate the Human nature from the needs that every Human has.

Jesus still needed to eat and drink, he still needed to sleep, he still was tempted. In His Humanity He had faith. To say otherwise is to deny his Humanity.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

This is all true but it does not change the fact that humans have faith.

Jesus was both Divine and Human, two natures. The Divine nature does not alleviate the Human nature from the needs that every Human has.

Jesus still needed to eat and drink, he still needed to sleep, he still was tempted. In His Humanity He had faith. To say otherwise is to deny his Humanity.

I fully understand what you are saying. You are saying that, since Jesus had a human nature like ours, which was subject to the same need for food, sleep, etc, so too He must have had faith. I understand what you are saying.

I have a question: Does the second person of the blessed Trinity need to have faith? Answer: No.

Question: How many people was Jesus? Was he one person who was human, and another who was Divine? Answer: Jesus was only one person, and He was Divine. Jesus was and is the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

Jesus was not like you and I. He had a human nature you we do, but His person is God - the second person of the Trinity.

He did have a human intellect, as we do, but His intellect possessed the beatific Vision of God. In other words, His human intellect “saw God face to face” (as we will in heaven). Just as we will not need faith in heaven, so too Jesus did not need faith while on earth… That is why the Church has ALWAYS taught that Jesus did not need faith (see above quote from St. Thomas that someone posted). What I am saying is not my opinion: it is what the Church has always taught.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

I fully understand what you are saying. You are saying that, since Jesus had a human nature like ours, which was subject to the same need for food, sleep, etc, so too He must have had faith. I understand what you are saying.

I have a question: Does the second person of the blessed Trinity need to have faith? Answer: No.

Question: How many people was Jesus? Was he one person who was human, and another who was Divine? Answer: Jesus was only one person, and He was Divine. Jesus was and is the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

Jesus was not like you and I. He had a human nature you we do, but His person is God - the second person of the Trinity.

No, His person was God and Man. You can not separate them as you are doing.

He was fully man. As we pray in the Creed every Sunday.

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin May, and was made man

What you propose is that while Jesus was Man, he was not Man as we are.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

No, His person was God and Man. You can not separate them as you are doing.

He was fully man. As we pray in the Creed every Sunday.

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin May, and was made man

What you propose is that while Jesus was Man, he was not Man as we are.

No, His Person was only God. Rather than argue with me, simply look into it. What I am telling you is true.

Jesus was not two people: one God and one man. This was condemned as a heresy around the 4th century. It may have been Nestorianism, but I am not 100% certain.

When we say His person was God, we do not mean that Jesus did not have a human nature. What is meant is that Jesus, who possessed two natures, was one person - God.

So in conclusion, Jesus Christ was only one person, not two people; and the one Person of Jesus was God - He was the second person of the Blessed Trinity, Who has “assumed” a human nature, but He did not thereby become two people, only one person.

As I said, rather than argue with me, look into it on your own.

 

[RSiscoe]

Let me add a little more. Jesus “was not man, as we are” (your quote), He had a human nature as we do. When we say the second person of the Blessed Trinity “became man”, what we mean is that he took to Himself a human nature like ours.

Jesus is said to have been 100% man and 100% God. He was 100% God because His person is Divine (the second person of the Trinity); He is 100% man because His Person also had a human nature and human soul, as man does.

His human nature was like ours, but His person was not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

Let me add a little more. Jesus “was not man, as we are” (your quote), He had a human nature as we do. When we say the second person of the Blessed Trinity “became man”, what we mean is that he took to Himself a human nature like ours.

Jesus is said to have been 100% man and 100% God. He was 100% God because His person is Divine (the second person of the Trinity); He is 100% man because His Person also had a human nature and human soul, as man does.

His human nature was like ours, but His person was not.

So he was 100% man but he was not man?

Very odd way to look at it.

By looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church I am going to stand by what I have said.

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472 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 favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.*109 *

97 GS 22 § 2.
98 Cf. Jn 14:9-10.
99 GS 22 § 2.
100 Cf. Damasus 1: DS 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; DS 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.

Especially with paragraph 470 and its reference to Gaudium et Spes paragraph 22.

He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.

If He has truly been made one of us and is like us in all things except sin, then He had faith. It doesn’t say expect sin and faith.

 

[RSiscoe]

Especially with paragraph 470 and its reference to Gaudium et Spes paragraph 22.

Quote:
He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.
If He has truly been made one of us and is like us in all things except sin, then He had faith. It doesn’t say expect sin and faith.

Jesus worked with human hands (because He had flesh); He thought with a human mind (because He had a human intellect); He acted with a human will (because He had two wills, one Divine and the other human); He loved with a human heart, (because He had a human heart). He was born of the Vigin Mary and has been made one of us, because He has has the human nature and huuman soul as we do.

All of those quotes from the Catechism are true. Notice, however, what the Catechism does not say: It specifically does not say Jesus had faith. Why? Because when a person’s human intellect, sees the Divinity of God (as Jesus’ did) that person does not need faith.

When a human soul sees the Divnity with it’s intellect, as we all will in heaven (if we make if there) the person no longer has faith, because faith only supplies for that which is lacking - it bridges the gap between what is known (or believed), but not seen. “We now see though a glass darkly (faith), but then face to face”( the beatific vision). Jesus’s human intellect possessed the beatific vision (“saw God face to face”) and that is why He did not have faith.

Just curious, did you read the quote from St. Thomas that was given above? That is what the Church has always taught. The Catechism quotes you gave, in no way contradicted what I am saying.

In the last post, you quoted me saying that Jesus’ human nature was like ours, but His person was not.

You responded by saying: “So he was 100% man, but was not man? Very odd way to look at it.”

Do you understand the difference between a person and a nature? If you do, my statement will not seem “odd” to you.

 

[RSiscoe]

Here is the quote again from St. Thomas:

St. Thomas’s answer:
Quote:
I answer that, As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God’s Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

— III, 7, 3ST​

---

 

[RSiscoe]

I am including a link to the section of the Summa of St. Thomas for you to read:

216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=said+above+%28II-II%2C+1%2C+4%29%2C+the+object+of+faith+is+a+Divine+St.+Thomas&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.newadvent.org/summa/400703.htm&w=said+above+ii+ii+object+faith+divine+st+thomas&d=B2FC24801B&icp=1&.intl=us

Here is the entire section in St. Thomas’ usual format of objections, then his answer, then the answers to the objections

Whether in Christ there was faith?

Objection 1. It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e.g. temperance and liberality. Now these were in Christ, as stated above (2). Much more, therefore, was there faith in Him.

Objection 2. Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not Himself, according to Acts 1:1: “Jesus began to do and to teach.” But of Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is “the author and finisher of our faith.” Therefore there was faith in Him before all others.

Objection 3. Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed. But in the blessed there is faith; for on Rm. 1:17, “the justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith,” a gloss says: “From the faith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight.” Therefore it would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it implies nothing imperfect.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 11:1): “Faith is the evidence of things that appear not.” But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): “Thou knowest all things.” Therefore there was no faith in Christ.

I answer that, As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God’s Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

Reply to Objection 1. Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with regard to their matter.

Reply to Objection 2. The merit of faith consists in this–that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Rm. 1:5: “For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name.” Now Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8: “Becoming obedient unto death.” And hence He taught nothing pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself. Reply to Objection 3. As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that “whereby such things as are not seen are believed.” But faith in things seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is the quote again from St. Thomas:

I do not doubt that St Thomas Aquinas wrote such things but that does not mean that it is Church Teaching on the matter.

As I understand it there are more than one saint who wrote against the Immaculate Conception.

And as a Byzantine Catholic, I do not put much into Aquinas.

I would say one more thing as I have in the past, just because a Saint said something or wrote something doesn not make it true. Infalliblity is not a chrism of the saints.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

I do not doubt that St Thomas Aquinas wrote such things but that does not mean that it is Church Teaching on the matter.

As I understand it there are more than one saint who wrote against the Immaculate Conception.

And as a Byzantine Catholic, I do not put much into Aquinas.

I would say one more thing as I have in the past, just because a Saint said something or wrote something doesn not make it true. Infalliblity is not a chrism of the saints.

But it is a charism of the Church and the Church has always taught that Christ had no faith. I am not sure if it has been defined at a council, but it has been taught since the beginning. In fact, I am unaware of anyone every teaching the contrary prior to the last century or so.

And you have shown me nothing from the Church saying Jesus DID have faith. What are you basing your belief on? Is it just your opinion? I am basing my belief on what the Church has always taught. What would you say is more likely to be true: what the Church has always taught, or your opinion, which is contrary to it?

Don’t miss my last post, where I quoted the entire section of the Summa.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

But it is a charism of the Church and the Church has always taught that Christ had no faith. I am not sure if it has been defined at a council, but it has been taught since the beginning. In fact, I am unaware of anyone every teaching the contrary prior to the last century or so.

And you have shown me nothing from the Church saying Jesus DID have faith. What are you basing your belief on? Is it just your opinion? I am basing my belief on what the Church has always taught. What would you say is more likely to be true: what the Church has always taught, or your opinion, which is contrary to it?

Don’t miss my last post, where I quoted the entire section of the Summa.

Summa means nothing to me.

This is not a dogma of the Church, unless you can show the council documents that address it.

There is much in the Church that is not Dogma and we are free to believe either way on those issues.

I am sorry while you are correct that I haven’t shown anything that shows the Church says that Christ had faith, you have not shown anything that shows the Church says that Christ didn’t have faith. The writings of one saint does not show it.

 

[Vincent]

Did Jesus see God face to face while He was on earth? The answer I guess would depend on how you look at the hypostatic union.

In Heaven our union with God will be perfected such that we will see Him face to face. In this perfect face to face union will we have the theological virtue of faith, or hope, for that matter? As I understand it, no. Having no need of faith in a face to face union with God will not do away with our humanity.

This is how Pope Pius XII answered the first question:

Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began. And that He might give a visible and exceedingly beautiful expression to this love, He assumed our nature in hypostatic union: hence -as Maximus of Turin with a certain unaffected simplicity remarks – "in Christ our own flesh loves us. But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condesceision of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity. In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

So Jesus, from the first moment of His conception, saw God face to face. And if Jesus saw God face to face, then that suggests that He did not have the theological virtue of faith.

If Jesus had faith, then that would entail that He didn’t see God face to face. If so, then the hypostatic union wasn’t as perfect as the union we will have with God when we see Him face to face.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Vincent:

Did Jesus see God face to face while He was on earth? The answer I guess would depend on how you look at the hypostatic union.

In Heaven our union with God will be perfected such that we will see Him face to face. In this perfect face to face union will we have the theological virtue of faith, or hope, for that matter? As I understand it, no. Having no need of faith in a face to face union with God will not do away with our humanity.

This is how Pope Pius XII answered the first question:

So Jesus, from the first moment of His conception, saw God face to face. And if Jesus saw God face to face, then that suggests that He did not have the theological virtue of faith.

If Jesus had faith, then that would entail that He didn’t see God face to face. If so, then the hypostatic union wasn’t as perfect as the union we will have with God when we see Him face to face.

Vincent,
I can buy into this if the fact is that faith is no longer necessary when we see God face to face.

But I do not see any proof that the theological virtue become null and void at such a time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas Aquinas:

It is written (Heb. 11:1): “Faith is the evidence of things that appear not.” But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): “Thou knowest all things.” Therefore there was no faith in Christ. (Summa Theologica, 3, 7, 3)

Who taught otherwise? Which doctor, pope, or council?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Divine nature does not alleviate the Human nature from the needs that every Human has.

Incorrect. Jesus was alleviated of concupiscence precisely because of his Divine nature. It is precisely because of His Divine nature that Jesus was sinless. Consequently, it is also precisely due to His Divine nature that Jesus did not have faith.

Now, many here have supported their argument from St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Does anybody have contrary evidence from any other Doctor, council, or pope? If so, by what authority are you proposing that Jesus did have faith? By your own private lights? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif What confidence can you draw from that?

I draw much confidence from the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings, and it seems I am not the only one …

Pope Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris”, Nos. 21,31

Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials [especially]…the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: “His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” …We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences.

…Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors. But, lest the false for the true or the corrupt for the pure be drunk in, be ye watchful that the doctrine of Thomas be drawn from his own fountains, or at least from those rivulets which, derived from the very fount, have thus far flowed, according to the established agreement of learned men, pure and clear; be careful to guard the minds of youth from those which are said to flow thence, but in reality are gathered from strange and unwholesome streams.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Incorrect. Jesus was alleviated of concupiscence precisely because of his Divine nature. It is precisely because of His Divine nature that Jesus was sinless. Consequently, it is also precisely due to His Divine nature that Jesus did not have faith.

Now, many here have supported their argument from St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Does anybody have contrary evidence from any other Doctor, council, or pope? If so, by what authority are you proposing that Jesus did have faith? By your own private lights? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif What confidence can you draw from that?

I draw much confidence from the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings, and it seems I am not the only one …

Pope Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris”, Nos. 21,31

No need to get nasty.

I am using logic here and seeing that there is no definitive teaching on this from the Church I am free to do so.

You can accept the arguments of Aquinas who is a Doctor of the Catholic Church but that doesn’t change the fact that he was off on the Immaculate Conception, something that was held from the beginning of the Church, but he was free to disagree with it becuase it was not a defined dogma at the time he was alive just as there is no defined dogma proclaiming that Christ had no faith.

In the absence of a defined dogma we are free to believe as we wish.

I am not saying I am right, I am just going by my understanding and using logic. My opinion may change, it may not.

But again, no need to get nasty.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Where was I nasty? Geeeeezzzzzz … it seems disagreement with you is always taken as a lack of charity. I charitably think that you are incorrect, and I charitably submit that you lack Catholic doctrinal support for you position.