Hypostatic Union in Jesus

[noorez]

NOTE: double post. This post exists in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=759408. I think it would have been more appropriate here. I’m still somewhat new to this forum so I am still learning my way around

As-salam alaykum wa rahmatu l-lāhi wa barakātuh:

…(my ponderings on church teachings continue…)

A question regarding the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus as taught by the catholic church. I understand that the church teaches that many aspects of this are a mystery, however, I’m not sure what aspects are a mystery and what aspects I simply do not know so I will put my thoughts below:

If the church teaches that Jesus was fully human in every way (apart from ever sinning), did Jesus have a ‘human soul’ ? Or was the only ‘soul’ present the essence of ‘God the Son’ ?

(please pardon any offence in this next question. i do not mean any). Occasionally, when a man has ‘certain dreams’ he will wake up with an erection. This is obviously not his fault in any way as we cannot control our dreams. We can only control our active thoughts. So, I would expect Jesus to not commit the sin of ‘adultery of the heart’, but would Jesus have ever had the experience of a ‘wet dream’?

more thoughts:

If Jesus was fully human, would the possibility of him sinning still exist? Or would the divine nature prevent this from happening?

It someone feels like the idea of a ‘spotless victim’ is meaningless when the victim himself has been ‘pre-programmed’ (so to speak) to never blemish himself.

I may not have direct questions in the above, so responses to my thoughts would be helpful if they are distinguishable.

 

[Goya]

NOTE: double post. This post exists in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=759408. I think it would have been more appropriate here. I’m still somewhat new to this forum so I am still learning my way around

As-salam alaykum wa rahmatu l-lāhi wa barakātuh:

…(my ponderings on church teachings continue…)

A question regarding the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus as taught by the catholic church. I understand that the church teaches that many aspects of this are a mystery, however, I’m not sure what aspects are a mystery and what aspects I simply do not know so I will put my thoughts below:

If the church teaches that Jesus was fully human in every way (apart from ever sinning), did Jesus have a ‘human soul’ ? Or was the only ‘soul’ present the essence of ‘God the Son’ ?

(please pardon any offence in this next question. i do not mean any). Occasionally, when a man has ‘certain dreams’ he will wake up with an erection. This is obviously not his fault in any way as we cannot control our dreams. We can only control our active thoughts. So, I would expect Jesus to not commit the sin of ‘adultery of the heart’, but would Jesus have ever had the experience of a ‘wet dream’?

more thoughts:

If Jesus was fully human, would the possibility of him sinning still exist? Or would the divine nature prevent this from happening?

It someone feels like the idea of a ‘spotless victim’ is meaningless when the victim himself has been ‘pre-programmed’ (so to speak) to never blemish himself.

I may not have direct questions in the above, so responses to my thoughts would be helpful if they are distinguishable.

I don’t know the Church to have spoken definitively–or at least not dogmatically–on these specifics of which you inquire. IMHO, I do believe Jesus was indeed capable of sinning–else Satan’s temptation in the dessert would have been meaningless, as would the agony in the Garden. As for ‘wet dreams’–I imagine He would have been susceptible to such, though it would have nothing at all to do with sin.

Christ was endowed with a mission from the Father. His will is and was, eternally shared with the Father’s. But his full humanity required Him to excercise His free will, in order to preserve this congruity of will. Hence when Jesus says “…yet not my will, but thine be done”, he is excercising his human endowment of free will…but surrendering it, to that of the Father. Had Christ excercised His free will in a manner contrary to the Father’s, that would have served to sever the triune Godhead, which is bound by a common will–and humanity would not have been saved.

Not that I pretend to be an authority–just one humble poster’s stab at a very challenging inquiry.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[TomD123]

A question regarding the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus as taught by the catholic church. I understand that the church teaches that many aspects of this are a mystery, however, I’m not sure what aspects are a mystery and what aspects I simply do not know so I will put my thoughts below:

If the church teaches that Jesus was fully human in every way (apart from ever sinning), did Jesus have a ‘human soul’ ? Or was the only ‘soul’ present the essence of ‘God the Son’ ?

(please pardon any offence in this next question. i do not mean any). Occasionally, when a man has ‘certain dreams’ he will wake up with an erection. This is obviously not his fault in any way as we cannot control our dreams. We can only control our active thoughts. So, I would expect Jesus to not commit the sin of ‘adultery of the heart’, but would Jesus have ever had the experience of a ‘wet dream’?

more thoughts:

If Jesus was fully human, would the possibility of him sinning still exist? Or would the divine nature prevent this from happening?

It someone feels like the idea of a ‘spotless victim’ is meaningless when the victim himself has been ‘pre-programmed’ (so to speak) to never blemish himself.

I may not have direct questions in the above, so responses to my thoughts would be helpful if they are distinguishable.

Well this is some deep stuff. I’ll give a brief answer and some links.

So,

1. Yes Christ had a human soul. A human being consists of soul and body. It was not as though God merely took on a human body, no, he became an actual man. Body and soul.
   ----As a side note on that, the essence of “God the Son” is actually the one true God—there is only one divinity. and of course since the incarnation God the Son shares in a human nature as well (Body and Soul)
2. I think we do not know for sure and the Church does not dwell on these issues because of the respect for Christ. I could be wrong although I would almost certainly say no Jesus did not have these dreams. The reason is not that those dreams are sinful but that they are part of a fallen state in which we are not completely in control of our passions. Jesus was completely in control. He would not have had excess lusts lingering around to cause those dreams. He had 100% command, just as Adam did before the fall.
3. Jesus was fully human. Hence he had a free human will. But as a result of the hypostatic union, this will was in completely conformity with the Divine Will and therefore Jesus Christ could not sin.
4. Jesus could redeem us because he was God. If Jesus was just a sinless man or an angel he could not have done so. So it is not as if Jesus was “pre programmed” to be spotless. He is spotless because he is God. He also has the power to redeem because he is God.

The incarnation is a tough thing to grasp. A good place to look would be the Catechism, the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. Also this blog has some posts on similar quesitons: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/ (there is a search tab on the left)

 

[aemcpa]

I posted this answer in the first post, but I will repost it here:

Yes, Our Lord has a human soul. He assumed a human nature, and the nature of man is that of a body-soul unity. Hence why we speak of the Holy Eucharist being the “body, blood, soul and Divinity” of Christ.

The Church teaches that Our Lord is impeccable, i.e. incapable of committing sin. The reason for this is that sin is committed by a person, not by a nature, and Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, specifically a Divine Person with a Divine Nature and a human nature. It is, of course, impossible for a Divine Person to commit sin.

As for the concept of a “spotless victim”, I have heard it said that the reason God took on a human nature is because a finite being cannot make an infinite sacrifice to satisfy a debt to an infinite God. If the Christ were only man and not God, then his sacrifice would not have been sufficient (just like the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant were not sufficient), but because he is both true God and true man, the human race was able to offer an infinite sacrifice.

Any comment I make on possible physiological manifestations of Our Lord’s humanity would be purely speculation, so I will pass on that question.

Peace be to you.

 

[aemcpa]

IMHO, I do believe Jesus was indeed capable of sinning–else Satan’s temptation in the dessert would have been meaningless, as would the agony in the Garden.

It is a dogma of the Church that Our Lord is impeccable, i.e. is incapable of committing sin. There is no room for theological opinion on this matter.

 

[R_C]

I don’t know the Church to have spoken definitively–or at least not dogmatically–on these specifics of which you inquire. IMHO, I do believe Jesus was indeed capable of sinning–else Satan’s temptation in the dessert would have been meaningless, as would the agony in the Garden.

That’s incorrect, but don’t feel bad

The Church has spoken very clearly on these matters. Christ did have a human soul. “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God.” "Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”, 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. "

And yes, we could argue that everything that is perfectly natural in men would happen to Christ, except sinning. With the specific event of “wet dream”, I would not think so, not in terms of dream. However, if I understand this correctly, a nocturnal emission is a biological function of the male body, which constantly produces semen which must be spontaneously released at some point. If this is indeed a natural process, I would not see why it would not happen - just without the “dream” lustful part that accompanies many of us.

Specifically Christ was totally, completely and fully unable to sin, in a way that was infinitely greater than that of Mary, in whom dwelt the fullness of grace of the Holy Spirit, for she was only human, while in Christ was fully present the human nature and the divine nature in such fashion that, in what concerns will, Christ’s divine nature was supreme ruler and thus his human nature was inclined only to good.

Satan’s temptations in the desert were - so to speak - as meaningless as the Lord’s reception of the Baptism. Yet God let both take place…as Christ said: “Permit it to be so now: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

As for the agony of the Lord, its nature was different. Christ was not in agony out of refusal of the divine will, as if his human nature rebelled against his divine nature. “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”, 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”.”

In this context, we can understand the reasons of the agony: as the Lord became increasingly aware of what He was willingly embracing for the sake of mankind (though by a perfect act of submission and cooperation of the human will with the divine will) his sorrows increased exceedingly - and it was a great sorrow indeed, because He was given to know by supernatural means just what He had to face.

When we meditate on the Passion, we often (I mean, always) do it from the outside and, so to speak, a bit coldly - meaning we can even suffer out of love for our Beloved, but it does not compare to what Christ felt, for instance, knowing that his chosen ones, his best friends, whose company he actually needed, had fallen asleep…knowing that one of his best friends would betray him…knowing that soon enough his (yes, his) High Priest would accuse Him…of blasphemy!

And even besides the humiliation, the knowledge of the pain itself…consider how much would you suffer if you knew for sure that in a few minutes someone will hit your finger with a hammer and break it…the very thought that this will happen no matter what, and that it’s a matter of time, hurts! And Christ knew just what sort of torture he would soon enough go through! Excruciating torture!

And that, all of that, along with the knowledge of how much this would hurt those who loved him, the angels, and especially His most kind mother…all of that is not comparable to the knowledge that he would in fact have to face death.

That enough, even having given perfect assent, suffices to inspire the kind of unspeakable terror that would cause blood to drip through pores and move the Father to send an angel at His side.

 

[Michael1966]

Hi noorez,

If we go with the scriptural use of “soul” then it is simply us, in the deepest sense of us. At this level I would say the soul of Jesus is both human and divine.

 

[aemcpa]

Hi noorez,

If we go with the scriptural use of “soul” then it is simply us, in the deepest sense of us. At this level I would say the soul of Jesus is both human and divine.

Our Lord has a human soul, but to speak of a “divine soul” is not appropriate as God is wholly simple and pure. Let’s stick to the defined teaching of the Church. Jesus Christ is one Person - the Second Person of the Trinity - with two natures (divine and human) and two wills (divine and human). His human nature, like ours, is that of a body-soul unity.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

To the first question the answer is yes, Jesus has a human soul. This is part of his full humanity just as much as his body is.

On the question of wet dreams, this is not the kind of question that has had much attention from the Church, for obvious reasons. St. Augustine had speculations about sexuality in non-fallen humans that probably went too far in desexualizing sexuality, so to speak. But I doubt Jesus had these kinds of dreams.

He would have had all our ordinary healthy bodily functions, but it is not clear whether this is one of them. The human body can absorb unused fluids like this, and this is what happens for many men after a certain age. Furthermore wet dreams caused ritual impurity in Jewish law, something difficult (though not impossible) to imagine in the case of Jesus.

In any case there would have been no disordered sexuality involved. That means that whatever may have happened physically it would not have been accompanied by sexual dreams. Christ’s integrity is not just a matter of freedom from sin but of complete exception from the spiritual effects of Original Sin, including disordered sexuality.

As for the possibility of sin in Christ, ultimately the answer is no, sin was not possible for him. It is true he had a free will like all human beings, but ultimately it is a person not a faculty of a person who sins. Christ was a Divine Person, and so if he had sinned it would have meant God sinning. Since sin and every kind of imperfection is incomparable with the divine nature, it really is true that God is not capable of sinning. This should not be thought of as a limitation on divine power but as a logical consequence of God’s perfect goodness.

Why did Satan still tempt Jesus? It is hard to say. Maybe he did not fully understand who Jesus was. Or maybe Satan had no hope of actually causing Christ to sin but tempted him anyway out of spite, just to make things humanly difficult for Jesus.

I would reject the idea that the sinlessness of Christ should be described as him being “pre-programmed” or that it is meaningless. As mentioned above Christ’s will was still free and still had to struggle to reject sin. Our assurance of Christ’s sinlessness is of the same sort, and held for the same reasons, as our assurance of God’s goodness in general. God is the very source of goodness and truth. The fact that he is the source does not diminish but enhances our appreciation of Christ’s spotlessness.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hi noorez,

If we go with the scriptural use of “soul” then it is simply us, in the deepest sense of us. At this level I would say the soul of Jesus is both human and divine.

Whether or not it is consistent with the scriptural use of the word I don’t know, but this idea is certainly not consistent with the Church’s use of the word “soul” over the centuries. Your phrase could indeed be interpreted as more or less Monophysite. I therefore submit that the idea of a soul that is both human and divine should not be suggested by any Catholic.

 

[Michael1966]

Whether or not it is consistent with the scriptural use of the word I don’t know, but this idea is certainly not consistent with the Church’s use of the word “soul” over the centuries. Your phrase could indeed be interpreted as more or less Monophysite. I therefore submit that the idea of a soul that is both human and divine should not be suggested by any Catholic.

Actually, I don’t think teaching on the soul has been that consistent. It appears to be influenced by Aquinas who, of course, was heavily influenced here by Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. If we return to the scripture and the faith passed down from the apostles we don’t have the elaborate teaching we find today. Rather we have something much simpler (there were no vegetative, sensitive and immortal souls in the apostolic faith, for example). It’s worth reminding ourselves, I think, what was the Apostolic faith, and what is the poius thought added to that apostolic faith in later generations. My own view is that when we step beyond the revelation passed down in scripture and to the first apostles we should remember we’re on more speculative ground, though often thoughtful ground.

Just a different way of looking at things, largely driven by trying to better understand the faith of the Church in the early monastic days before the schism of the Church (and so looking at the faith prior to scholasticism of the West).

God bless +

 

[aemcpa]

Actually, I don’t think teaching on the soul has been that consistent. It appears to be influenced by Aquinas who, of course, was heavily influenced here by Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. If we return to the scripture and the faith passed down from the apostles we don’t have the elaborate teaching we find today. Rather we have something much simpler (there were no vegetative, sensitive and immortal souls in the apostolic faith, for example). It’s worth reminding ourselves, I think, what was the Apostolic faith, and what is the poius thought added to that apostolic faith in later generations. My own view is that when we step beyond the revelation passed down in scripture and to the first apostles we should remember we’re on more speculative ground, though often thoughtful ground.

Just a different way of looking at things, largely driven by trying to better understand the faith of the Church in the early monastic days before the schism of the Church (and so looking at the faith prior to scholasticism of the West).

God bless +

The definitions and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are not “pious thought” or “speculative ground”. They are the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Michael1966]

The definitions and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are not “pious thought” or “speculative ground”. They are the Apostolic Faith.

Perhaps I should be clear when I say “Apostolic faith” - I was talking about the faith handed to the Apostles - the once-and-for-all general revelation. We can also track a separate line of thought coming from Greek philosophical thought on the soul - particularly Platonic and Aristotelian thought of rational, irrational, vegetative, sensitive and immortal souls. I myself do not put the latter on the same level as the former, though I appreciate it was very thoughtful men who, from early in Christianity, sought to express the Christian faith in terms familiar to thinkers well-versed in Greek philosophy (with that perhaps reaching a climax in Aquinas and other high scholastics intrigued by the recovery and translation of ancient Greek philosophy texts) where the philosophy of the soul was developed to an almost Baroque level (if you’ll excuse the anachronism). I was, hopefully, reminding Nooez that we need to think what we mean by “soul” and be aware of where that thinking comes from.

If we return especially to scripture we find a much simpler use of “soul” which is much more simply “selfhood”. I appreciate others will be more enthusiastic than I in embracing scholastic thought on souls.

But I suspect we’re getting away from Noorez’s questions, so I’ll leave it there apart from a final comment to Noorez that the essence of the hypostatic union, to me, is that Jesus is not some demi-God - he is not a new type of creature that is neither properly man nor properly God. Rather Jesus *is *(note: not was) a real man in whom the fullness of God also resides (Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9) - God incarnate, God-with-us (Matthew 1:23). Being both truly man and truly God, Jesus Christ is the one mediator between man and God ([1 Timothy 2:5](1 Timothy 2:5)), and we might rightly call him Lord and God (John 20:28).

God bless +

 

[aemcpa]

Perhaps I should be clear when I say “Apostolic faith” - I was talking about the faith handed to the Apostles - the once-and-for-all general revelation. We can also track a separate line of thought coming from Greek philosophical thought on the soul - particularly Platonic and Aristotelian thought of rational, irrational, vegetative, sensitive and immortal souls. I myself do not put the latter on the same level as the former, though I appreciate it was very thoughtful men who, from early in Christianity, sought to express the Christian faith in terms familiar to thinkers well-versed in Greek philosophy (with that perhaps reaching a climax in Aquinas and other high scholastics intrigued by the recovery and translation of ancient Greek philosophy texts) where the philosophy of the soul was developed to an almost Baroque level (if you’ll excuse the anachronism). I was, hopefully, reminding Nooez that we need to think what we mean by “soul” and be aware of where that thinking comes from.

If we return especially to scripture we find a much simpler use of “soul” which is much more simply “selfhood”. I appreciate others will be more enthusiastic than I in embracing scholastic thought on souls.

But I suspect we’re getting away from Noorez’s questions, so I’ll leave it there apart from a final comment to Noorez that the essence of the hypostatic union, to me, is that Jesus is not some demi-God - he is not a new type of creature that is neither properly man nor properly God. Rather Jesus *is *(note: not was) a real man in whom the fullness of God also resides (Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9) - God incarnate, God-with-us (Matthew 1:23). Being both truly man and truly God, Jesus Christ is the one mediator between man and God ([1 Timothy 2:5](1 Timothy 2:5)), and we might rightly call him Lord and God (John 20:28).

God bless +

The Catholic faith is the faith that was handed on to the Apostles. Truth cannot contradict Truth.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Actually, I don’t think teaching on the soul has been that consistent. It appears to be influenced by Aquinas who, of course, was heavily influenced here by Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. If we return to the scripture and the faith passed down from the apostles we don’t have the elaborate teaching we find today. Rather we have something much simpler (there were no vegetative, sensitive and immortal souls in the apostolic faith, for example). It’s worth reminding ourselves, I think, what was the Apostolic faith, and what is the poius thought added to that apostolic faith in later generations. My own view is that when we step beyond the revelation passed down in scripture and to the first apostles we should remember we’re on more speculative ground, though often thoughtful ground.

Just a different way of looking at things, largely driven by trying to better understand the faith of the Church in the early monastic days before the schism of the Church (and so looking at the faith prior to scholasticism of the West).

God bless +

I think you would have to bypass the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils before you could possibly get to a point of sufficiently undeveloped theology to even think of asserting things like a soul that is both divine and human.

The fusion of Jewish faith and Greek thought is an essential part of Christianity, and the development of doctrine over two millenia of Church teaching and authentic scholarship is an indispensable process guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit. This is how Apostolic Tradition is handed on to each generation, by the teachings of the bishops responding to the needs of each century and constantly refining the presentation of that Tradition. It is not preserved by attempting, on very little information, to reconstruct the most primitive status of that Tradition in the first century and actually jettisoning all the authentic development and teaching that has occurred in between.

 

[Michael1966]

The fusion of Jewish faith and Greek thought is an essential part of Christianity, and the development of doctrine over two millenia of Church teaching and authentic scholarship is an indispensable process guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit. This is how Apostolic Tradition is handed on to each generation, by the teachings of the bishops responding to the needs of each century and constantly refining the presentation of that Tradition. It is not preserved by attempting, on very little information, to reconstruct the most primitive status of that Tradition in the first century and actually jettisoning all the authentic development and teaching that has occurred in between.

Thanks Aelred

If you see doctrinal development and the incorporation of Greek philosophy into that doctrinal development as essential parts of Christianity then I can respect how you see things. For me that would appear to make the faith of the Apostles lacking what you consider essential. Either way though the doctrinal development is not an explicit part of general revelation which ceased with the death of the Apostles.

BTW - I do not necessarily reject later thoughts - I just don’t put them on the same level any more, and I like to distinguish between what we would consider to be the original faith of the Church (with scripture being the most important source) and what has been developed by later generations, and look at how those developments occurred (e.g. were they simple logical conclusions of what was there before, or were other sources such as Greek philosophy brought in the supplement divine revelation). I would disagree that we have little knowledge of the faith of the Apostolic age - we have the bible!

God bless +

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Thanks Aelred

If you see doctrinal development and the incorporation of Greek philosophy into that doctrinal development as essential parts of Christianity then I can respect how you see things. For me that would appear to make the faith of the Apostles lacking what you consider essential. Either way though the doctrinal development is not an explicit part of general revelation which ceased with the death of the Apostles.

BTW - I do not necessarily reject later thoughts - I just don’t put them on the same level any more, and I like to distinguish between what we would consider to be the original faith of the Church (with scripture being the most important source) and what has been developed by later generations, and look at how those developments occurred (e.g. were they simple logical conclusions of what was there before, or were other sources such as Greek philosophy brought in the supplement divine revelation). I would disagree that we have little knowledge of the faith of the Apostolic age - we have the bible!

God bless +

The important thing to keep in mind when discussing the Deposit of the Faith (that which was handed down by the Apostles) is that much of it was latent and not articulated. This is Apostolic in origin (the idea of development.) That is why the Evangelists and the apostles were busy writing, to confront errors and articulate things which were only latent in the original teachings/gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not a vague conjecture, this is indisputable fact and reality. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul say things that were never so articulated by Jesus Christ, but only latent in his parables and other teachings? At least not in any of the Gospel records. So “development” already exists in Sacred Scripture itself!

Secondly, the Church today, meaning the Roman Catholic Church, is the oracle of revelation. This revelation is the ongoing unfolding of the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. This Church is blessed with infallibility by virtue of the daily ongoing guidance of Jesus Christ, her head, in the Holy Spirit.

Privately judging or evaluating of Church doctrine in light of one’s own understanding of the original intent and wording of Sacred Scripture is precisely why we have Protestants. That is where one goes for that sort of religion.

 

[Goya]

That’s incorrect, but don’t feel bad

The Church has spoken very clearly on these matters. Christ did have a human soul. “The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God.” "Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”, 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. "

And yes, we could argue that everything that is perfectly natural in men would happen to Christ, except sinning. With the specific event of “wet dream”, I would not think so, not in terms of dream. However, if I understand this correctly, a nocturnal emission is a biological function of the male body, which constantly produces semen which must be spontaneously released at some point. If this is indeed a natural process, I would not see why it would not happen - just without the “dream” lustful part that accompanies many of us.

Specifically Christ was totally, completely and fully unable to sin, in a way that was infinitely greater than that of Mary, in whom dwelt the fullness of grace of the Holy Spirit, for she was only human, while in Christ was fully present the human nature and the divine nature in such fashion that, in what concerns will, Christ’s divine nature was supreme ruler and thus his human nature was inclined only to good.

Satan’s temptations in the desert were - so to speak - as meaningless as the Lord’s reception of the Baptism. Yet God let both take place…as Christ said: “Permit it to be so now: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

…

I stand corrected.

And to further the point: I looked through the Catechism, but could not find a statement to the effect that Jesus was incapable of sinning. However, I did find these:

Jesus is impeccable– He could not possibly sin

Insofar as we recognize that Jesus Christ is truly God, it is clear that he cannot possibly sin. God cannot sin, therefore Jesus cannot sin. It is impossible to even conceive of Christ sinning without mentally separating and dividing his divine and human natures – that is, one cannot think that Jesus could sin without becoming a Nestorian heretic.
But, one says, “Jesus isn’t only God, he is also man. Therefore, his human nature allows him to have the possibility of sinning.”

Clearly this cannot be the case: For a nature does not sin, but a person. And Jesus is a Divine Person, therefore, as God and as man, he cannot possibly sin. If Jesus could sin, then it would not be a man sinning, but God sinning through a human nature – and this is absurd.

It is simply and absolutely impossible for Christ to sin, because he is God and God cannot sin.
…

The Second Council of Constantinople condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia for claiming that it was only after the Resurrection that Jesus became impeccable and entirely unable to sin. Thus, Christians are not free to think that Jesus could have possibly sinned at any time during his life on earth.

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/02/if-christ-could-not-sin-how-was-he.html

And this:

The bishops have rendered their authoritative opinion as well:

Review of Fr. McBrien’s Catholicism, National Council of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, April 9, 1996:

A. Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Statements

1. The Impeccability of Jesus Christ

Catholicism insists that it is possible to hold the faith of the church while maintaining that Jesus Christ could have sinned. “It is not that Jesus Christ was absolutely incapable of sin, but rather that he was able not to sin and, in fact, did not sin” ( p. 547). The book argues that “both views - the one favoring impeccability and the one that does not - are within the range of Catholic orthodoxy” (p. 547). This position, however, cannot be reconciled with the Christology of the councils.

[Footnote 2: In the anathemas against the Three Chapters, the Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the opinion attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia that Jesus attained impeccability only with the resurrection (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 434).]

In two natures, Jesus Christ is only one hypostasis (or person), the hypostasis of the Word. With Christ there is no possible subject of the verb to sin. There are indeed two wills in Christ, but only one person, one subject. The contention that Jesus could have sinned, if followed to its logical conclusion, inevitably implies a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology, though it must be said that Catholicism does not draw such extreme conclusions.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/could-jesus-have-possibly-sinned-or.html

I’ve always had difficulty with the Trinity. Intellectually, that is. St. Augustine wrote about it in his treatise on the Trinity, and likened it to trying to fit the ocean into a hole a child was digging on the beach. That’s about how I feel right now. And then some.

I’ll take it as my daily dose of humility.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Michael1966]

The important thing to keep in mind when discussing the Deposit of the Faith (that which was handed down by the Apostles) is that much of it was latent and not articulated. This is Apostolic in origin (the idea of development.) That is why the Evangelists and the apostles were busy writing, to confront errors and articulate things which were only latent in the original teachings/gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not a vague conjecture, this is indisputable fact and reality. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul say things that were never so articulated by Jesus Christ, but only latent in his parables and other teachings? At least not in any of the Gospel records. So “development” already exists in Sacred Scripture itself!

Thanks for your thoughts Ambrose. Could you talk a little more of this “latent faith”. Are you saying that the Apostles and Evangelists knew the details of the scholastic doctrines we have today but they didn’t pass them on, so the faith had to be redeveloped to the same scholastic level that the Evangelists and Apostles had? I haven’t come across that view before, but it’s an interesting one (albeit one I find hard to share).

God bless +

 

[aemcpa]

Thanks Aelred

If you see doctrinal development and the incorporation of Greek philosophy into that doctrinal development as essential parts of Christianity then I can respect how you see things. For me that would appear to make the faith of the Apostles lacking what you consider essential. Either way though the doctrinal development is not an explicit part of general revelation which ceased with the death of the Apostles.

BTW - I do not necessarily reject later thoughts - I just don’t put them on the same level any more, and I like to distinguish between what we would consider to be the original faith of the Church (with scripture being the most important source) and what has been developed by later generations, and look at how those developments occurred (e.g. were they simple logical conclusions of what was there before, or were other sources such as Greek philosophy brought in the supplement divine revelation). I would disagree that we have little knowledge of the faith of the Apostolic age - we have the bible!

God bless +

You are really leaning over the cliff of sola scriptura.