Very strange homily

[St_Francis]

We recently heard a homily in which Fr. said the following:

1. Mary was 13 when the Annunciation occurred (this bothers me because when I was young, they said she was 16, thenit was 15 or 16, then 14 or 15, then 13 or 14… what next???)
2. Mary was a “single mother” ( )–not clarified but perhaps implying because she was “unmarried” at the time of Conception?
3. Mary and Joseph were “illegal immigrants”–I don’t want to start a topic on illegal immigration in the US today, but there are laws, and by definition, illegal immigration is breaking those laws.
4. And that Mary experienced labor pains–I thought that since she was Immaculately conceived that she would have not? Is this not the basis by which we believe in her Assumption?
5. Addditionally, Fr has mentioned that Christ did not know things… he gives as an example that He had to learn to walk, but implies that Christ didn’t know ahead of time about the Crucifixion? Fr seems to emphasize Christ’s humanity over His Divinity.

Thanks for any thoughts about this–I am trying to clarify for my children who are practically up in arms about all this.

 

[Ghosty]

Just my personal thoughts on the matters you listed.

1: We don’t really know her age, though I’ve always understood her to be rather young by our standards. Thirteen isn’t out of the question for pregnancy, after all, especially when considering the work of God. I would say that early teens is a safe bet given the words used to describe her, though, and the age at which people were generally betrothed.

2: I don’t like that implication at all. She most definately wasn’t a single mother! Even at the time of the Incarnation she and Joseph were betrothed, which would roughly count as legally married. That’s why Joseph thought of “putting her aside” rather than simply not marrying her. They hadn’t consumated their relationship, however, and never would.

3: Sounds like an attempt to work U.S. political and social questions into things. I don’t see any grounds for calling them illegal immigrants, especially since the laws weren’t the same then and there as they are now and here.

4: This is a matter for debate and speculation. The Lady in Revelation experiences labor pains, and is often associated with Mary. Also, Genesis states that labor pains were increased due to sin, not necessarily created. It’s really not something we know, but different people have come up with quite different pious answers. After all, if Mary died then not all of the consequences of the Original Sin were kept from her.

5: Christ likely had to “learn” how to walk, and talk, and other things that humans develop naturally over time. As for Him not knowing about the Crucifixion, I don’t see how that’s even remotely possible. Jesus was the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God from all eternity. How could He not have known His own plan of Salvation for humanity? It’s one thing to say that He had to aquire and develop skills, another to say that He didn’t have complete knowledge.

Again, these are just my thoughts

Peace and God bless!

 

[wisdom_3_5]

St Francis:

We recently heard a homily in which Fr. said the following:

1. Mary was 13 when the Annunciation occurred (this bothers me because when I was young, they said she was 16, thenit was 15 or 16, then 14 or 15, then 13 or 14… what next???)

We don’t know how old Mary was at the time of the Annunciation. It can be speculated that she did conceive around 14. In that time and place people married much much younger than they do now.

1. Mary was a “single mother” ( )–not clarified but perhaps implying because she was “unmarried” at the time of Conception?

If Mary had been married at the time of the conception of Jesus then she probably wouldn’t be a virgin and there would be doubt as to who the father was. She was betrothed to Joseph, which was a formal contract/promise that hadn’t been finalized. I think at the time it was considered marriage that hadn’t been consumated. The bible tells us that Joseph was going to divorce her quietly, so there is some sort of vow in a betrothal.

1. Mary and Joseph were “illegal immigrants”–I don’t want to start a topic on illegal immigration in the US today, but there are laws, and by definition, illegal immigration is breaking those laws.

I’m guessing that this is related to their flight into Egypt? I don’t know what the laws on immigration were back then or if they even had them. Maybe he meant they were aliens in a foreign land, having the difficulties and burdens of being among people whos ways are not familiar.

1. And that Mary experienced labor pains–I thought that since she was Immaculately conceived that she would have not? Is this not the basis by which we believe in her Assumption?

In Genesis God tells Eve that He will “greatly increase your pangs in childbearing”. It can be implied that if Eve conceived before the fall she still would have had labor pains, not as much as today, but still some sort of sensation that could be considered pain. I’ve never been pregnant but my sister-in-law has said that “it felt exilirating to push when it was time.” So, Mary since she was Immaculately conceived would have experienced some kind of sensation that could be regarded as pain by some.

1. Addditionally, Fr has mentioned that Christ did not know things… he gives as an example that He had to learn to walk, but implies that Christ didn’t know ahead of time about the Crucifixion? Fr seems to emphasize Christ’s humanity over His Divinity.

I’m not sure how to answer this one. I’m thinking that once He was 12 He knew his mission, based on the finding in the Temple in Luke. I think that His human nature had to grow into His divine nature. Maybe once He reached the age of reason He started understanding with His human nature His divine mission. Maybe someone else can explain it better than me.

Thanks for any thoughts about this–I am trying to clarify for my children who are practically up in arms about all this.

 

[St_Francis]

Wisdom:

If Mary had been married at the time of the conception of Jesus then she probably wouldn’t be a virgin and there would be doubt as to who the father was. She was betrothed to Joseph, which was a formal contract/promise that hadn’t been finalized. I think at the time it was considered marriage that hadn’t been consumated. The bible tells us that Joseph was going to divorce her quietly, so there is some sort of vow in a betrothal.

I’m not sure I agree with you here, since tradition (not Tradition) has it that Mary and Joseph had already decided to remain celibate, and that would certainly explain Mary’s asking How can this be since I know not man?–if she had been planning to marry and had been told that she would have a baby, it makes sense to me that she would have assumed that the baby would be in the future?

I’m guessing that this is related to their flight into Egypt? I don’t know what the laws on immigration were back then or if they even had them. Maybe he meant they were aliens in a foreign land, having the difficulties and burdens of being among people whos ways are not familiar.

I’m sorry, yes, the illegal immigration idea was related to their flight into Egypt. My own idea was that if Egypt had had laws restricting immigration, Joseph would not have been instructed to break the law? I just don’t see any room for justifying *illegal *immigration by equating it with what Joseph was instructed by God to do.

In Genesis God tells Eve that He will “greatly increase your pangs in childbearing”. It can be implied that if Eve conceived before the fall she still would have had labor pains, not as much as today, but still some sort of sensation that could be considered pain. I’ve never been pregnant but my sister-in-law has said that “it felt exilirating to push when it was time.” So, Mary since she was Immaculately conceived would have experienced some kind of sensation that could be regarded as pain by some.

I did not know that (despite having read it before!)–thanks for clarifying that for me.

Thanks very much!

 

[St_Francis]

1: We don’t really know her age, though I’ve always understood her to be rather young by our standards. Thirteen isn’t out of the question for pregnancy, after all, especially when considering the work of God. I would say that early teens is a safe bet given the words used to describe her, though, and the age at which people were generally betrothed.

Thanks for all your replies, Ghosty. I had thought that 16 or so was the general age back than, not as young as 13.

 

[Madia]

1. Mary was 13 when the Annunciation occurred (this bothers me because when I was young, they said she was 16, thenit was 15 or 16, then 14 or 15, then 13 or 14… what next???)

There’s no binding teaching of Mary’s exact age at the time of Annunciation. I think the “Mystical City of God” says she was 14 but that’s from private revelation (which do not belong to the deposit of faith):
geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7194/contents.html

1. And that Mary experienced labor pains–I thought that since she was Immaculately conceived that she would have not? Is this not the basis by which we believe in her Assumption?

There’s no definitive teaching so it can be believed either way. I personally believe she didn’t but you’re free to believe either way.

In Genesis God tells Eve that He will “greatly increase your pangs in childbearing”. It can be implied that if Eve conceived before the fall she still would have had labor pains, not as much as today, but still some sort of sensation that could be considered pain.

Of course, I can turn the volume up on a television that is muted and say that I “greatly increased” the volume. So there wasn’t neccesarly pain during childbirth before the fall. Of course there might have been a “sensation” during childbirth but not neccesarly pain. A normal person eating feels a sensation when they swallow but that sensation isn’t pain. With original sin a person may get a soar throat or eat something too hot and then it would be painful but the normal sensation wouldn’t be described as pain.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

St Francis:

I’m not sure I agree with you here, since tradition (not Tradition) has it that Mary and Joseph had already decided to remain celibate, and that would certainly explain Mary’s asking How can this be since I know not man?–if she had been planning to marry and had been told that she would have a baby, it makes sense to me that she would have assumed that the baby would be in the future?

I had not heard that they had decided to remain celibate. Is that an Eastern tradition? At our Advent Vespers service last Sunday we had an Orthodox priest give the homily & he talked about Joichim and Anne dedicating Mary to the service of the Temple (because they were old and wanted to give back to God etc.) Is it an actual teaching or is it one of those points that is left up to us to reconcile?

I think that they were not married, Mt 1:18-20 “Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord said,‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’”

This text seems to imply a contract of marriage (betrothal) but not a marriage in the full sense of the word as we see marriage today. It seems from verse 20 that Mary has not been “taken” as Joseph’s wife. But from verse 19 Joseph is referred to as Mary’s husband. The idea of what a betrothal is is what we need to define. Is it a marriage or a step to marriage? Or, and this is what i understand it to be, it is considered marriage by the community (everyone knows they are husband and wife- there is no courting from others etc) but the final vows have not been taken and there has been no consummation of the “marriage”. I’m sure others have explained it better than me.

 

[Eileen_T]

Mary and Joseph were refugees rather than “illegal immigrants” by today’s understanding.

It is my understanding that in earlier, including biblical, times, a bethrothal was as formal as a marriage and as difficult to break.

Betrothal was regarded as a morally irrevocable obligation to wed. It was “a promise, a pledge, a covenant, a vow to God and an oath to man.”

Numbers 30:2 - “If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”

 

[St_Francis]

Oh, thank you Eileen–that they were refugees is so simple and yet Imissed it completely!

So the betrothal situation seems to have made it so that she wouldn’t be regarded as having become pregnant “too soon?” I just couldn’t see the connection between a single mother who had sinned and Mary, who had never sinned. That is just not there for me,andI kind of resent his saying that about the mother of our Lord!

And Wisdom, I don’t think it’s particular to Eastern churches, but it might be as I have read quite a lot about them.

Madia, I like that analogy of the volume!

Thanks everyone!

 

[Kristina_P]

St Francis:

Oh, thank you Eileen–that they were refugees is so simple and yet Imissed it completely!

So the betrothal situation seems to have made it so that she wouldn’t be regarded as having become pregnant “too soon?” I just couldn’t see the connection between a single mother who had sinned and Mary, who had never sinned. That is just not there for me,andI kind of resent his saying that about the mother of our Lord!

And Wisdom, I don’t think it’s particular to Eastern churches, but it might be as I have read quite a lot about them.

Madia, I like that analogy of the volume!

Thanks everyone!

Not all single mothers have sinned. There are widows, rape victims, etc… I think your priest, in calling Mary a “single mother” was saying that people may have talked about her in the same way people talk about single mothers today. Joseph tried to protect her from such hurtful talk and from any legal consequences by deciding to “divorce her quietly.” God intervened and explained the situation, so Joseph ended up not doing it. But, it’s possible that others may have thought ill of Mary for being pregnant, especially if she was supposed to have been dedicated to the Temple as a virgin or if she just wasn’t officially married at the time.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

St. Francis:

I would have some real doubts about the faith of this priest…

1. Mary’s Age - Jewish Girls were usually betrothed around the age of 14 to and were married around the age of 15. I’ve heard of this being done one or two years later, but never earlier. I would have to ask what the Priest’s source on this is. As has been pointed out, there are no de fide pronouncements on this, so you can believe whatever you think is reasonable.
2. The Blessed Virgin most definitely was NOT a “Single Mother”. She was betrothed to a descendent of King David by the name of Joseph who was married to her in everything except for the ceremony and the consummation of the relationship. As one poster has pointed out, Betrothal was a binding covenant, and one that was not lightly broken.
3. The Roman Empire had open Borders much as the EU does today. One could travel from end of the empire to another so long as one had some form of citizenship or “free” status and the means to do so. That’s part of what facilitated the spread of the Gospel during the Church’s first 30 years and why St. Thomas was able to go Persia and India.
4. Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children. Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. Isaih 66:7-9 NAB

The ECF considered that passage to apply to the BVM giving Birth to Jesus (v. 7) with her being preserved from the labor pains by her Immaculate Conception and with her giving birth to the Church with the BVM suffering along with Jesus at the Cross (v. 8-9) and then being given us by adoption/assignment - “Woman, Behold thy son.”…“Behold thy mother.” (John 19:26-27) That is why the Blessed Virgin Mary is called “The Mother of the Church” and the “Co-Redemptrix” by the Church.

1. The Gospel of Luke is quite clear that Jesus knew why he was at the Temple when he parents found him. The Eastern Orthodox icons show the infant Jesus as clinging to his mother because he sees the angels with the cross and the nails.

There is no scripture of tradition to support that Jesus never didn’t know why he was here. It is one thing to talk about human PHYSICAL development (walking, talking, eating, and all the other things infants have to learn how to do PHYSICALLY).It’s quite another to say that means Jesus didn’t know or understand why he was here.

I would be very tempted to ask that priest if he believes that Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead or if the resurrection was metaphorical. I suspect the answer to that question would be illuminating.

I’ve posted (on other threads) the results of a survey that was taken in the UK where over a third of the clergy in the Church of England said they didn’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

What you heard, a sermon where the Gospel was put into the service of a Left-Wing political message of “Tolerance” sounds just like the type of sermon one of those ministers would make. That’s why I would suspect he might not necessarily believe in the BODILY Resurrection of Christ or that it’s necessary for Christianity or for Salvation.

You see, if you believe in the Resurrection, everything else serves the Gospel, and you don’t use the Gospel to score cheap political points or to “Teach Tolerance of Sin”.

So, if you get a chance ask him. Meanwhile, pray for him.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Kristina P.:

Not all single mothers have sinned. There are widows, rape victims, etc… I think your priest, in calling Mary a “single mother” was saying that people may have talked about her in the same way people talk about single mothers today. Joseph tried to protect her from such hurtful talk and from any legal consequences by deciding to “divorce her quietly.” God intervened and explained the situation, so Joseph ended up not doing it. But, it’s possible that others may have thought ill of Mary for being pregnant, especially if she was supposed to have been dedicated to the Temple as a virgin or if she just wasn’t officially married at the time.

Kristina:

Betrothal in that society was extremely close to marriage. We don’t hacve anything like it in our society - The closest is the old “Contract du Marriage” where a man and woman contract to marry each other on a given date with legal penalties and humiliation for failure to marry as agreed. Under those conditions, Mary’s pregnancy would have been proof of one of three things: 1) Joseph and Mary had relations before their relationship was formally “blessed by God” (a “No-No” but not fornication as they were betrothed). 2) Mary committed adultery (what Joseph thought happened). or 3) She was raped and got pregnant as a result of the crime (not unthnkable but unlikely).

The penalty for Adultery (the proof was growing in Mary) was stoning. Joseph knew that he wouldn’t be able to pass the child off as his, but that he didn’t want Mary to be stoned. So, He therefore endeavered to save Mary from being stoned to death, which was far worse than being harrased and humiliated by her neighbors…

The angel intervened because Joseph didn’t want Mary o be harmed and because he was willing to accept option #4: *"… For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." **Matt. 1:20-21 NAB *** Mary was the mother of the long-promised and long-awaited Messiah.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Todd_Easton]

1. Mary was 13 when the Annunciation occurred (this bothers me because when I was young, they said she was 16, thenit was 15 or 16, then 14 or 15, then 13 or 14… what next???)

In the Protoevangelium of James, written about A.D. 120, it says that, to fulfill a vow, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, took Mary to live in the Temple when she was 3 years old (paragraph 7). When Mary was 12 years old, before her menarche, she had to leave the Temple and was given into Joseph’s care (betrothed to Joseph?) and she went to live in his house (paragraph 8). Mary conceived Jesus when she was 16 years old (paragraph 12).

 

[CatholicSam]

Ghosty:

After all, if Mary died then not all of the consequences of the Original Sin were kept from her.

How could Mary be subjected to “some” but not “all” consequences of Original Sin if she had no Original Sin in the first place? She was created without Sin. Mary suffered, true. But this was her choice, not because of Original Sin. She also suffered when Simeon told her of Jesus’ fate, at which point she experienced the sword piercing her heart. This was not due to Original Sin. Mary endured *redemptive * suffering necessitated by *our * sins.

Can anyone further explain about the Dormition of Mary? Thanks

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

St Francis:

We recently heard a homily in which Fr. said the following:

…

1. Addditionally, Fr has mentioned that Christ did not know things… he gives as an example that He had to learn to walk, but implies that Christ didn’t know ahead of time about the Crucifixion? Fr seems to emphasize Christ’s humanity over His Divinity.

Thanks for any thoughts about this–I am trying to clarify for my children who are practically up in arms about all this.

I don’t see why it ISN’T possible that Jesus didn’t know things. He became a man and I don’t think the mind of a Man could contain omniscient mind of God. We might share in his mind, but we cannot contain it.

Now Jesus, as the Son of God, sharing the the Trinitarian Life would be omniscient; however, durring the 33 years when he was a man living in our timeline it is quite conceivable that he didn’t know everything.

Now, this doesn’t mean he didn’t know about his pending death and resurection, but only that he was limited in knowledge of what Joe Smith was doing down the street (unless it was necessary for his mission). Even in the Bible it mentions times when Jesus displayed an incomplete knowledge.

Here are a few I remember off hand:

Luke 8:45 - "Jesus said, ‘Who touched me?’… "
“No one knows the day except our Father in heaven” (paraphrased I keep getting end of times sites instead of Bible quotes on google).

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Lady Cygnus:

Now, this doesn’t mean he didn’t know about his pending death and resurection, but only that he was limited in knowledge of what Joe Smith was doing down the street (unless it was necessary for his mission). Even in the Bible it mentions times when Jesus displayed an incomplete knowledge.

Here are a few I remember off hand:

Luke 8:45 - "Jesus said, ‘Who touched me?’… "
“No one knows the day except our Father in heaven” (paraphrased I keep getting end of times sites instead of Bible quotes on google).

Lady Cygnus:

Could Jesus had asked the question, not because he didn’t know, but because he wanted the woman to come forward and to receive the full healing so that she would be edified and strengthened and that He and His father would be glorified?

Could this have been for HER benefit as well as that of the crowds which pressed about Him, oblivious to her suffering?

Remember, things aren’t always as they seem, and Jesus never left his Divine nature or His Divine person when he took on our human nature…

From the Athanasian Creed

*Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.*

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Jesus never stopped being God. That’s why he could claim to be God as many times as He did.

In Christ, Michael

 

[adrift]

Footnotes from The New American Bible

Betrothed to Joseph: betrothal was the first part of the marriage, constituting a man and woman as husband and wife. Subsequent infidelity was considered adultery. The betrothal was followed some months later by the husband’s taking his wife into his home, at which time normal married life began.

Mathew 1:20

Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary **your wife **into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.

Note that Joseph in his dream is told to take his wife into his home. Mary was not unwed.

 

[Ghosty]

How could Mary be subjected to “some” but not “all” consequences of Original Sin if she had no Original Sin in the first place?

Because Original Sin is not a “something”, it’s a lack of “something”, namely a direct relationship with the Grace of God. Calling the experience of something a consequence of Original Sin doesn’t mean that it’s a trait of “something”, since sin is a negation and not a thing.

Death is a consequence of Original Sin in that people began to die because they (Adam and Eve) sinned, but we also know that physical death can happen to the body without being absent from the Grace of God, if that is God’s will, such as in the case of Jesus.

A more simple example would be the wearing of clothing and physical modesty. That is clearly depicted as a consequence of Original Sin in Genesis, as even the concept of wearing clothes arose because of the sin of Adam and Eve, but we don’t assume that Mary ran around naked her whole life. Original Sin is not something that, “if I put it into you, you will wear clothes”, but is rather a privation from Grace that leads people to things they wouldn’t have gone towards otherwise. We can wear clothes even without Original Sin, as Mary and Jesus did, but that in no way negates the fact that clothes-wearing came as a result of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

Peace and God bless!

 

[TEME525]

I often come to this Forum, either as Tome or as I am doing right now as Teme525 and when I do my starting point is almost always a “Low Christology” ( strongy influenced by trying to understand who the Church came to know the Jesus of history is the Christ of Faith). My approach is influnced then by a historical studies, so I was interested I was very interested in reading the post of this threat. All were very good and very informative and I would like to give special note to Ghosty’s (This is meant as a compliment and is not a Kiss of Death I hope!)

So I would like to add just a point or two. First, how did your priest tie in what he was saying in a pastoral context? All our studies really mean nothing if we cannot apply them to help make our lives a little more Christian - to help make us better followers of Christ. My thought is if what we say here or what a priest expresses in his homily doesn’t do this then the value is lacking.

My second point is on the last isuue about Christ knowledge or foreknowledge of his death. From a view point of looking at Christ just in his humanity he certainly knew he was going to die. Did he know this as a child, I doubt it but from Luke we know Christ understood He had a unique relationship with God the Father and a vocation in life.

Later, in His “Public Life” it is clear He understood that he was on the same path as John the Baptist. Christ, humanily speaking, would not compromise His message now His life of doing the Will of His Father. And He saw what happened to John when John would not compromise and He was willingly headed down that same path.

So just from a human perspective I would say that Jesus clearly knew He was going to die and because his mission was putting himself not only on a collison course with the rligious authority in Jerusalem, but with Rome and he knew full well, from his human experience how Rome handled his type ( or so thought the Romans).

I think it would be interesting to see what your good priest’s reaction would be if you brought up that point.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Traditional Ang:

Lady Cygnus:

Could Jesus had asked the question, not because he didn’t know, but because he wanted the woman to come forward and to receive the full healing so that she would be edified and strengthened and that He and His father would be glorified?

Could this have been for HER benefit as well as that of the crowds which pressed about Him, oblivious to her suffering?

Remember, things aren’t always as they seem, and Jesus never left his Divine nature or His Divine person when he took on our human nature…

From the Athanasian Creed

*Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.*

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Jesus never stopped being God. That’s why he could claim to be God as many times as He did.

In Christ, Michael

Christ wasn’t omnipresent nor omnipowerful during his time on earth, then why would it be a problem if he wasn’t omniscent? Since all three define the trinitarian life, and we know for sure two were not present in Christ, why not a third. We just have to keep in mind that it was his choice. He could have had the power to come down from the cross, but choose not to. He could have had the ability to be everywhere at once, but chose to be contained in a human body. He could have known all things in the universe, but chose to be limited in knowledge.

Perhaps he asked instead of using whatever divine means he had in order for this person to reveal herself. But it would seem to me like a lie to ask a question for which you already know the answer. I know there is such a thing as a rhetorical question, but usually those hearing it know you are being rhetorical, it appears the apostles thought he really wanted to know.

From St Paul…

" Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.[83]

From the Catechism…

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 favour 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]