progigalson’s comments:
Pope Virgilius and the Council of Rome are talking about the Son of God, not the human nature of Jesus which is not even mentioned.
Did you even bother to read your own quote?
Am I wasting my time with people who don’t do their homework?
I’m beginning to think so. :coffeeread:
True, but the Son of God had two natures, and the human nature didn’t know everything and couldn’t as Catechism para 472 said.
Prodigals’ comment:
If you read it all at once, you forget what the first sentence said while you read the second, and so forth.
Let’s take is one piece at a time.
He had two consciousnesses, one the divine Son of God, and the other in the human soul. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been a true man and the Incarnation would mean nothing.
The human soul was aware of the infinite knowledge of the divine person, but did not have all of it.
Nor were certain parts of that knowledge revealed to the human soul which could not contain it all.
Any piece of the divine knowledge was available to the human soul if requested, but the man did not ask to know everything, which the man could not.
And that is the end of my involvement in this fruitless “discussion”. :juggle:
As Catechism para 472 said, the man’s knowledge could not be “unllimited”.
It’s that simple. What is your problem?
My problem is that what you are saying is essentially
Nestorianism, which has been condemned as heresy.
How about we let an actual theologian weigh in:
"As God, Christ most certainly knew and knows all things without any qualification whatsoever. And, even as man, we affirm that our Savior knew and knows all things – excepting that he does not comprehend the Divine Essence (for such is beyond the powers of the human intellect).
However, when we speak of the human knowledge of Christ, we must affirm that his knowledge is of three types: Beatific knowledge, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge. Beatific knowledge is that by which a creature knows all things in the Word – in the vision of the Divine Essence. Infused knowledge is the divine gift of knowledge, infused directly and without any assistance from the senses. Finally, acquired knowledge is that which is gained through sense experience. Of these, only acquired knowledge is proper to human nature unaided by grace.
Now Christ our God knew the day and hour of the Second Coming in his divine intellect. Moreover, even in his humanity, our Lord knew the time of the Parousia – according to both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge. However, the Savior did not know the time of the Final Judgment through sense experience and, hence, it was not part of his acquired knowledge.
Thus, when Jesus says that he does not know the day or the hour, we must understand him to mean that he does not know the time from his humanity – i.e. he does not know it from acquired knowledge through sense experience. Nevertheless, he most certainly did and does know the day and the hour in his humanity – i.e. he knows it in his human intellect through both beatific and infused knowledge.
Hence, the Good Lord does not lie, nor even deceive, when he says that he does not know the day or the hour of the Final Judgment – he only means to tell us that he knows it not from his humanity.
What God does not make to be known, he is said not to know
When Christ our Savior states that the Son does not know the day or the hour of the Second Coming, he means that the Son does not make the time to be known. Much as when we say that a day is “happy” or “pleasant,” we do not intend that the day itself is pleasant but that it makes us to be pleasant; so too, Christ is said not to know insofar as he does not make us to know (so, St. Hilary of Potiers, St. Gregory the Great, and others).
St. Augustine offers the following commentary: “According to the form of God everything that the Father has belongs to the Son for All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine. According to the form of a slave, however, his teaching is not his own but of the One who sent him. Hence of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. He is ignorant of this in the special sense of making others ignorant. He did not know it in their presence in such a way as to be prepared to reveal it to them at that time.” So too the Catechism: “Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.”
The way you are depicting Jesus is as a human soul with a second Divine soul dwelling within Him. Again, flat out Nestorianism. And this is actually why in the creed, we say He is “consubstantial with the Father.” In case you don’t know (not saying that you don’t), consubstantial means “of one and the same substance/essence.” In saying that the Holy Trinity “saw to it that He knew what He needed to know,” you are essentially saying that Jesus, the human being, was not God, but had a direct line to God. Not so.
So that is “my problem.” I have come to understand that you don’t like people disagreeing with you, so if you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine.
Unless John lied, all the books in the Library of Congress couldn’t describe what Jesus did in one minute. 
