L
lakotak
Guest
Was it possible for Jesus and Mary to ever be sick or have a disease?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
katholikos12
Guest
Based on sin causing death and illness I would say no.
But they were in a world that has sin, which might have affected them, without causing death (obviously).
So maybe.
Personally I think no.
But they were in a world that has sin, which might have affected them, without causing death (obviously).
So maybe.
Personally I think no.
S
svid2
Guest
Possible? Yes. But I like to think they did not. Especially our Lord.
G
GEddie
Guest
HE was able to die, so I’d say yes.
If I understand correctly, those who can heal others have life flow from their bodies into the other’s. So our LORD would have suffered for all those whose bodies HE healed. No wonder HE had to get away from everybody!
ICXC NIKA
If I understand correctly, those who can heal others have life flow from their bodies into the other’s. So our LORD would have suffered for all those whose bodies HE healed. No wonder HE had to get away from everybody!
ICXC NIKA
K
Khalid
Guest
To the above poster: recall that Jesus did not die of natural means. He could die by violence alone: he died by violence. Adam and Eve were likewise; they were naturally immortal (only after the sin was the curse pronounced, “Thou art dust, and unto dust shalt thou return”), but violence could have ended their lives. Of course, in Eden, there was no possible source of violence before the Fall. Jesus, entering the world as the Last Adam, obedient even unto death on a cross, where the First Adam had rebelled and caused the world and mankind to become corrupt, was likely to fall to violence (disregarding that he had to in order for God’s plan, and for the Law and the Prophets to be fulfilled, cf. Isaiah 52:13-53:12).
Now, Jesus could not be sick, because he was sinless, and the wages of sins is death (and illness, suffering, work). I believe, theoretically, possibly could have become sick, if he had so wished, being also the All-Powerful God, but I am not certain of this: it could be that he could not have been ill no matter what, because in order to be ill or suffer, one must be toiling under the strain of original sin, which Christ was not, and, therefore, even God’s power could not have made Christ ill, no more than it could cause a triangle to have 188º in it. So, Jesus could not be naturally ill: this is certain. Could he have been made ill by a miracle? This is unknown, but, I, personally, doubt as much, as for him to be made ill at all would require him laboring under original or actual sin, if even for an instant, which is patently absurd; on this view, not even a miracle could make Christ ill, because such is a logical impossibility, and no miracle, no act of God, can break the laws of logic: God’s omnipotence is tied by what is conceivable, and something illogical (a nine-and-one-half-sided square, or pi as a rational number, or creation in both six and eight days) is inconceivable: no amount of power could make such a thing happen in this universe.
This is not dogma, but personal speculation: Jesus and Mary were both personally immortal (thus, Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven alive, as she could not die by natural causes: the Church allows for both beliefs, that she was bodily assumed both alive and resurrected), as they were without sin, and death entered the world through sin, and the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Christ was the Last Adam, Mary the Last Eve, who had obeyed where the First of their names had failed; therefore, they were not under the curse of death, or work, or pain in childbirth being multiplied, etc.
Now, Jesus could not be sick, because he was sinless, and the wages of sins is death (and illness, suffering, work). I believe, theoretically, possibly could have become sick, if he had so wished, being also the All-Powerful God, but I am not certain of this: it could be that he could not have been ill no matter what, because in order to be ill or suffer, one must be toiling under the strain of original sin, which Christ was not, and, therefore, even God’s power could not have made Christ ill, no more than it could cause a triangle to have 188º in it. So, Jesus could not be naturally ill: this is certain. Could he have been made ill by a miracle? This is unknown, but, I, personally, doubt as much, as for him to be made ill at all would require him laboring under original or actual sin, if even for an instant, which is patently absurd; on this view, not even a miracle could make Christ ill, because such is a logical impossibility, and no miracle, no act of God, can break the laws of logic: God’s omnipotence is tied by what is conceivable, and something illogical (a nine-and-one-half-sided square, or pi as a rational number, or creation in both six and eight days) is inconceivable: no amount of power could make such a thing happen in this universe.
This is not dogma, but personal speculation: Jesus and Mary were both personally immortal (thus, Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven alive, as she could not die by natural causes: the Church allows for both beliefs, that she was bodily assumed both alive and resurrected), as they were without sin, and death entered the world through sin, and the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Christ was the Last Adam, Mary the Last Eve, who had obeyed where the First of their names had failed; therefore, they were not under the curse of death, or work, or pain in childbirth being multiplied, etc.
R
Regina_Love
Guest
He was fully human & fully God. Yes, as a human he would get sick.Was it possible for Jesus and Mary to ever be sick or have a disease?
Disease and death had entered the world. It was a present & active reality in his day. I didn’t see God making life supernaturally easy as Mary waddled to Betheham, or had to sleep in a barn.
K
Khalid
Guest
But he was sinless human. Humans can only become ill or die through the effects of sin, as “Thou art dust, and unto dust shalt thou return”, and “the wages of sin is death”. (Pain in childbirth is also another effect of sin, so, it is doubtful that Mary gave birth in pain, as pain in childbirth is part of God’s pronounced curse for Adam’s sin.)
E
Evan
Guest
I would answer yes.
For what we call ‘sick’ is often not an infirmity of the body, but a life (although very simple) living within us (bacteria, not virus). As Jesus is the source of life (germs included) he would make a fine host for some germs as they attempt to live in union with him. His immune system would fight them off, but for at time, he would be ‘sick’.
Another question along this line: could he be injured? Obviously yes, see the crucifixion.
For what we call ‘sick’ is often not an infirmity of the body, but a life (although very simple) living within us (bacteria, not virus). As Jesus is the source of life (germs included) he would make a fine host for some germs as they attempt to live in union with him. His immune system would fight them off, but for at time, he would be ‘sick’.
Another question along this line: could he be injured? Obviously yes, see the crucifixion.
P
POJIUJH
Guest
I wouldn’t doubt that even germ cells were aware in some way that He was their creator.
EDIT: Actually, bacteria and viruses obey God’s commandment to them since they don’t have free will. For Him to get sick would require Him to will to be sick. He could only have willed that so as to identify with humankind, but then, would He not reveal that as a consolation to us? To the best of my reading so far, there isn’t any private revelation that says such a thing.
Also, since we’re at odds with nature because of our sin “Cursed is the ground because of you" we inherited disease. He was the new Adam, greater than Adam. He chose to suffer, but since there is no divide between His humanity and nature, could nature have ever caused Him to suffer? Except maybe the heat being an outside influence.
EDIT: Actually, bacteria and viruses obey God’s commandment to them since they don’t have free will. For Him to get sick would require Him to will to be sick. He could only have willed that so as to identify with humankind, but then, would He not reveal that as a consolation to us? To the best of my reading so far, there isn’t any private revelation that says such a thing.
Also, since we’re at odds with nature because of our sin “Cursed is the ground because of you" we inherited disease. He was the new Adam, greater than Adam. He chose to suffer, but since there is no divide between His humanity and nature, could nature have ever caused Him to suffer? Except maybe the heat being an outside influence.
E
Evan
Guest
If he worked with Joseph in carpentry, would he not have grown tired? Maybe gotten a sliver in his flesh? Are you trying make him no longer human as we are human? Could he never have broken a bone or squinted in the sunlight or been thirsty on a hot day?I wouldn’t doubt that even germ cells were aware in some way that He was their creator.
EDIT: Actually, bacteria and viruses obey God’s commandment to them since they don’t have free will. For Him to get sick would require Him to will to be sick. He could only have willed that so as to identify with humankind, but then, would He not reveal that as a consolation to us? To the best of my reading so far, there isn’t any private revelation that says such a thing.
Also, since we’re at odds with nature because of our sin “Cursed is the ground because of you" we inherited disease. He was the new Adam, greater than Adam. He chose to suffer, but since there is no divide between His humanity and nature, could nature have ever caused Him to suffer? Except maybe the heat being an outside influence.
Of course he would never know the blessings of a days rest or a cool drink or a Mother’s loving concern when ill. Poor, guy, I guess Mary was just a cook and housekeeper.
Did you ever see the Passion of the Christ? The fall where Mary runs to him? Is that outside the perview of a life without suffering?
P
POJIUJH
Guest
I am talking about nature Evan, more specifically about germs following the conversation that was going on so far. We couldn’t have gotten sick before the fall since nature and our relation to it was perfect. Only after the fall did lions, bears, snakes and spiders become dangerous to us, the same would go for bacteria. I am only wondering if bacteria also wouldn’t effect the Lord and Our Lady since they are perfect humans.If he worked with Joseph in carpentry, would he not have grown tired? Maybe gotten a sliver in his flesh? Are you trying make him no longer human as we are human? Could he never have broken a bone or squinted in the sunlight or been thirsty on a hot day?
Of course he would never know the blessings of a days rest or a cool drink or a Mother’s loving concern when ill. Poor, guy, I guess Mary was just a cook and housekeeper.
Did you ever see the Passion of the Christ? The fall where Mary runs to him? Is that outside the perview of a life without suffering?
T
thistle
Guest
The Church does NOT teach that Mary was assumed alive. The Church does not state if she died first or not and we are free to believe either way. In fact in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope includes the early Church Fathers who talked about the death of Mary. There is more tradition that she died rather than not died and I believe Mary did die first and was assumed before the corruption of her body.To the above poster: recall that Jesus did not die of natural means. He could die by violence alone: he died by violence. Adam and Eve were likewise; they were naturally immortal (only after the sin was the curse pronounced, “Thou art dust, and unto dust shalt thou return”), but violence could have ended their lives. Of course, in Eden, there was no possible source of violence before the Fall. Jesus, entering the world as the Last Adam, obedient even unto death on a cross, where the First Adam had rebelled and caused the world and mankind to become corrupt, was likely to fall to violence (disregarding that he had to in order for God’s plan, and for the Law and the Prophets to be fulfilled, cf. Isaiah 52:13-53:12).
Now, Jesus could not be sick, because he was sinless, and the wages of sins is death (and illness, suffering, work). I believe, theoretically, possibly could have become sick, if he had so wished, being also the All-Powerful God, but I am not certain of this: it could be that he could not have been ill no matter what, because in order to be ill or suffer, one must be toiling under the strain of original sin, which Christ was not, and, therefore, even God’s power could not have made Christ ill, no more than it could cause a triangle to have 188º in it. So, Jesus could not be naturally ill: this is certain. Could he have been made ill by a miracle? This is unknown, but, I, personally, doubt as much, as for him to be made ill at all would require him laboring under original or actual sin, if even for an instant, which is patently absurd; on this view, not even a miracle could make Christ ill, because such is a logical impossibility, and no miracle, no act of God, can break the laws of logic: God’s omnipotence is tied by what is conceivable, and something illogical (a nine-and-one-half-sided square, or pi as a rational number, or creation in both six and eight days) is inconceivable: no amount of power could make such a thing happen in this universe.
This is not dogma, but personal speculation: Jesus and Mary were both personally immortal (thus, Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven alive, as she could not die by natural causes: the Church allows for both beliefs, that she was bodily assumed both alive and resurrected), as they were without sin, and death entered the world through sin, and the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Christ was the Last Adam, Mary the Last Eve, who had obeyed where the First of their names had failed; therefore, they were not under the curse of death, or work, or pain in childbirth being multiplied, etc.
L
lakotak
Guest
My only thought here is if Jesus died and all of us die, why wouldn’t Mary have died. She received the fruits of the Resurrection, a glorified body, before the rest of us.The Church does NOT teach that Mary was assumed alive. The Church does not state if she died first or not and we are free to believe either way. In fact in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope includes the early Church Fathers who talked about the death of Mary. There is more tradition that she died rather than not died and I believe Mary did die first and was assumed before the corruption of her body.
K
Khalid
Guest
If you read the very next clause of my post, I say the Church allows both views (death and resurrection and no death); by the logic I laid out in my post, life is demanded. I am not the Church; as I prefaced that section with, “This is personal speculation, not dogma”.The Church does NOT teach that Mary was assumed alive. The Church does not state if she died first or not and we are free to believe either way. In fact in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope includes the early Church Fathers who talked about the death of Mary. There is more tradition that she died rather than not died and I believe Mary did die first and was assumed before the corruption of her body.
T
thistle
Guest
My mistake. I misread what you said.If you read the very next clause of my post, I say the Church allows both views (death and resurrection and no death); by the logic I laid out in my post, life is demanded. I am not the Church; as I prefaced that section with, “This is personal speculation, not dogma”.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Saying that the Church “allows both views” is not actually true. The Church tolerates the view that Mary never died for the time being. Blessed Pope John Paul II taught that Mary did in fact die. The entire Eastern Church has always taught that Mary died. In time the Western Church will be obliged to dogmatically declare this truth, just as Papal infallibility was believed and taught from ancient times till it was finally declared in 1870. Does that mean that people who denied papal infallibility previously were right? No it doesn’t.If you read the very next clause of my post, I say the Church allows both views (death and resurrection and no death); by the logic I laid out in my post, life is demanded. I am not the Church; as I prefaced that section with, “This is personal speculation, not dogma”.
As far as Jesus and Mary being sick; I believe firmly that Mary and Jesus suffered throughout their lives. They prayed continually, fasted and lived in abject poverty. It is ludicrous to think all of Mary and Jesus’ offerings of their lives to God were free from any cost (without suffering.) All we have to do is look at Jesus on the Cross with his Mother standing beside Him. How could there be no suffering?
By analogy we can presume that natural illnesses were possible as well. Certainly hunger, fatigue, exposure to the elements and other natural conditions applied. By the same token, they may have also been spared sickness, for whatever reason. However, it doesn’t mean that Mary and Jesus did not suffer their entire lives, just as we do.
T
thistle
Guest
You are wrong. Catholics are allowed to believe Mary died or did not die before being assumed. We are NOT BOUND either way.Saying that the Church “allows both views” is not actually true. The Church tolerates the view that Mary never died for the time being. Blessed Pope John Paul II taught that Mary did in fact die. The entire Eastern Church has always taught that Mary died. In time the Western Church will be obliged to dogmatically declare this truth, just as Papal infallibility was believed and taught from ancient times till it was finally declared in 1870. Does that mean that people who denied papal infallibility previously were right? No it doesn’t.
As far as Jesus and Mary being sick; I believe firmly that Mary and Jesus suffered throughout their lives. They prayed continually, fasted and lived in abject poverty. It is ludicrous to think all of Mary and Jesus’ offerings of their lives to God were free from any cost (without suffering.) All we have to do is look at Jesus on the Cross with his Mother standing beside Him. How could there be no suffering?
By analogy we can presume that natural illnesses were possible as well. Certainly hunger, fatigue, exposure to the elements and other natural conditions applied. By the same token, they may have also been spared sickness, for whatever reason. However, it doesn’t mean that Mary and Jesus did not suffer their entire lives, just as we do.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Has the Catholic Church ever stated whether Jesus and Mary could have ever been sick?
I know they both suffered.
If Jesus was ever sick would that mean that He would be a blemished lamb and therefore not a perfect sacrifice?
Could a sick Mary transfer a pre-fall perfect humanity to Jesus? Was a pre-fall humanity required for Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice?
Did Jesus’ humanity contain BOTH pre-fall and post-fall elements?
I think Jesus suffered but was never sick. I think Mary suffered–I don’t know if she was ever sick.
I know it is Catholic dogma that Jesus was passable–therefore He was capable of suffering. I don’t know about becoming sick. Does anyone know? Have any theologians ever speculated?
I know they both suffered.
If Jesus was ever sick would that mean that He would be a blemished lamb and therefore not a perfect sacrifice?
Could a sick Mary transfer a pre-fall perfect humanity to Jesus? Was a pre-fall humanity required for Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice?
Did Jesus’ humanity contain BOTH pre-fall and post-fall elements?
I think Jesus suffered but was never sick. I think Mary suffered–I don’t know if she was ever sick.
I know it is Catholic dogma that Jesus was passable–therefore He was capable of suffering. I don’t know about becoming sick. Does anyone know? Have any theologians ever speculated?
G
GEddie
Guest
He may not have been “sick”, but He probably suffered from less than perfect well-being, as a result of operating a human body in a corrupt environment. I.e., he probably had muscular aches, heat exhaustion, etc, which although not “sicknesses”, represent less than total wellness.Has the Catholic Church ever stated whether Jesus and Mary could have ever been sick?
I know they both suffered.
If Jesus was ever sick would that mean that He would be a blemished lamb and therefore not a perfect sacrifice?
Could a sick Mary transfer a pre-fall perfect humanity to Jesus? Was a pre-fall humanity required for Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice?
Did Jesus’ humanity contain BOTH pre-fall and post-fall elements?
I think Jesus suffered but was never sick. I think Mary suffered–I don’t know if she was ever sick.
I know it is Catholic dogma that Jesus was passable–therefore He was capable of suffering. I don’t know about becoming sick. Does anyone know? Have any theologians ever speculated?
If HE never had any of that, HE would not have lived a truly human life, as intrinsic to human life is the vulnerable human body.
ICXC NIKA
K
Khalid
Guest
None have ever replied to the main thrust of argumentation: The wages of sin is death, and Mary and Jesus were without actual or original sin, and therefore could not die nor suffer by natural means (this includes sickness, work-as-suffering, and childbirth, along with death, as these were specifically pronounced by God’s own lips in Genesis 3 to be the curse of sin), let alone addressed that, if such is true, not even a miracle could have made Christ or Mary ill, as it would break the laws of logic as much as making a square circle.
They could possibly suffer psychologically; most definitely suffer by violence; he could suffer at the hand of Satan’s kingdom, if his Godhood allowed it (see the Temptation in the Wilderness), so on and so forth. These are not natural; they were caused by the actions of other beings with free will who were, additionally, fallen. Jesus entered in to a fallen world, so others could cause him to suffer according to violence. But he, naturally, could not suffer. Christ’s suffering could be brought about only through the actions of an actor with free will; those things which have no free will (that is, are not men or angels or demons), could not cause Christ to suffer, as he was 1) not laboring under any form of original or actual sin of any kind whatsoever.
All of those statements apply equally to the Blessed Virgin.
Also, teaching of the Eastern church is in no way binding on me or the Western church. How is it not possible that in this case, the Eastern church inherited an understanding (the Dormition) lacking the fullness of the truth from the Orthodox Church, and will eventually need correction by Western dogmatists (or Eastern dissenters)? For now, the Magisterium of the Church has not adjudicated between the two positions, notwithstanding the private theological opinions of popes and the lower-case “t” tradition of certain Rites of the Church, for a more precise formulation of what i meant when I said, “the Church allows both views”.
They could possibly suffer psychologically; most definitely suffer by violence; he could suffer at the hand of Satan’s kingdom, if his Godhood allowed it (see the Temptation in the Wilderness), so on and so forth. These are not natural; they were caused by the actions of other beings with free will who were, additionally, fallen. Jesus entered in to a fallen world, so others could cause him to suffer according to violence. But he, naturally, could not suffer. Christ’s suffering could be brought about only through the actions of an actor with free will; those things which have no free will (that is, are not men or angels or demons), could not cause Christ to suffer, as he was 1) not laboring under any form of original or actual sin of any kind whatsoever.
All of those statements apply equally to the Blessed Virgin.
Also, teaching of the Eastern church is in no way binding on me or the Western church. How is it not possible that in this case, the Eastern church inherited an understanding (the Dormition) lacking the fullness of the truth from the Orthodox Church, and will eventually need correction by Western dogmatists (or Eastern dissenters)? For now, the Magisterium of the Church has not adjudicated between the two positions, notwithstanding the private theological opinions of popes and the lower-case “t” tradition of certain Rites of the Church, for a more precise formulation of what i meant when I said, “the Church allows both views”.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.