The baptism of Jesus was not the sacrament of baptism, this was the baptism of Johannes which was only a symbol. Jesus never received the sacrament of baptism. Mary did not need a baptism because she had no original sin. But she could still have this symbol too, why not.
Haha, that’s an interesting speculation but is beside the point. If you want to know what I meant, read Constantine’s posts on the last page.
Infallibus Deus clearly state that Mary’s nature is the same as ours. If you believe that being free from Original Sin would make someone not die, then why do baptized people die?
She was already full of grace from her beginning, though humble as she may be it is quite possible that she would go through baptism regardless. Also she received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost even though she has already been filled with grace in the past.
The Baptism of Jesus was a Sacramental baptism, but not on Jesus. Rather, it was Jesus confering the baptism on all creation (ie. sanctifying all of creation).
You keep saying that Mary and Jesus’ natures were same as ours. I am not countering that and you keep repeating it for seemingly no reason.
When Satan tempted Jesus to jump off the Temple he said God’s angels would bear Him up so that a stone would not strike His foot. If Jesus could not be injured or killed why would angels have to bear Him up. Jesus got tired, hungry, thirsty, angry, frustrated, happy, sad, grieved, scared… Is Jesus diminished if He had cavities, or blisters, or a stomach ache?
What do you mean no reason? What is the topic of this thread? The nature of a human being is relevant to this thread. When Adam and Eve sinned, they changed the nature of mankind and we became subject to sin and death. That very nature is what needed healing, and that very nature is what Jesus assumed. If he didn’t assume it, it wasn’t healed. Thus to say they are of a different nature means we are not saved.
Not sinning and having a fallen nature are two different things. You have fallen into this misconception that once one has a fallen nature, that they will sin right away. The answer to that is Grace, and because Mary was filled with Grace she was able to resist committing sin despite the obvious nature of her humanity.
Prove it.
There is another way to put it. The way of the truth.
Prove it. Where does it say in Infallibus Deus that the Immaculat Conception resulted in a different human nature for Mary, other than our own human nature?
There is nothing here that supports your point.
It seems that you are the only one who is making stuff up because you have produced nothing from official Church teachings or any writings of any Church Father, Confessor and/or Saint that makes the claim that Mary’s and Christ’s humanity is a different humanity than ours.
There is only one human nature. Whether Jesus sturggled on sin or not (and he did not, I made that very clear early on if you were paying attention) is besides the point. Jesus never existed with a human nature alone, he has 2 natures all the time from the time of the Incarnation. So whatever inherent weaknesses human nature has is already complemented and perfected by His divine nature. And this is our path to salvation, that is why it is taught, “God became man so that man may become gods.” The divine nature repairs and perfects the human nature and thus heals any and all sickness of that nature. Jesus had that which is why even in his humanity he is perfect and sinless. The problem with your argument is that you only want to focus on the human nature separate from the divine nature, which is your stumbling block into understanding how Theosis works and how the Incarnation actually worked. If Christ’s humanity is different from our humanity, his becoming human serves us no purpose. That is the teaching from the Fathers from the First Millennium, from St. Athanasius to St. Maximos the Confessor.
I fully agree with what the Church teaches. You are the one with a misconception of what the Church teaches.
What you consider untrue is the teaching of the Father of the faith. Too bad you don’t accept the true teaching of the Church.
Wrong. It was common consensus in the Church for 1800 years that Mary did die until this new, unpatristic, untraditional thought of Mary not dying came about 200 years ago.
In the first place, the question is moot- Jesus aged to age 33 or thereabouts, and then sacrificed Himself for us. It was not possible for Him to age beyond that because his wayfaring ceased when He was crucified. However, your priest is correct that Jesus did not suffer cavities, colds or flu, or other common ailments. Rather than trying to be “consistent” I suspect your priest was just accessing his memory banks in Christology so that he could provide you with the correct answer.
St. Thomas Aquinas notes in the Summa Part III that Christ assumed a perfected human nature from the moment of conception, the grace of union preceding habitual grace, both of which are present in Christ. It is incorrect to say that he assumed a “fallen” human nature, since that would entail that He assumed original sin. He did not. Further, to say that Christ “had a fallen nature” is to say that “he was fallen” and this is clearly incorrect. Parenthetically it is important to remember that the true nature of humanity is not “fallen,” it is not. This is a Protestant notion. The true nature of humanity, and our true destiny, is perfection and the beatific vision.
Nestorianism says that Christ is two distinct persons, one is the Son of God and the other is Jesus the man. That is not what I am saying. I am merely explaining that Christ indeed has two natures, fully God and fully Man. His humanity is not any different from ours, and his humanity is complete including having his own human will distinct from his divine will. These are all orthodox teachings of the Council Fathers. My argument is only to explain that if Christ’s human nature can be detached from his divine nature (which you cannot in reality), then his human nature is everything we are.
His human nature is perfected by his divine nature, but he assumed a human nature no other than our own. I have already provide a quote and link to teachings by the Council Fathers pointing to this teaching. In fact, this union is how we ourselves will be perfected and saved through theosis.St. Thomas Aquinas notes in the Summa Part III that Christ assumed a perfected human nature from the moment of conception, the grace of union preceding habitual grace, both of which are present in Christ. It is incorrect to say that he assumed a “fallen” human nature, since that would entail that He assumed original sin. He did not. Further, to say that Christ “had a fallen nature” is to say that “he was fallen” and this is clearly incorrect. Parenthetically it is important to remember that the true nature of humanity is not “fallen,” it is not. This is a Protestant notion. The true nature of humanity, and our true destiny, is perfection and the beatific vision.
As far as sin, Christ was not conceived via carnal generation, which is necessary for the assumption of original sin. Christ was possessed of the beatific vision from the moment of His conception and therefore was not capable of actual sin either. For Him to be capable of sin, He would have had to have a “fallen nature,” which He did not. Christ was impeccable, i.e. incapable of sin. Christ had no sin nor did he have the fomes of sin. (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q.15, A.1-2.)
There is a nice summation of some of these points by Thomistic scholar Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange at thesumma.info/saviour/saviour45.php.
I understand. St. Thomas correlated the views of the Council Fathers and was guided by them. The theology of the Roman Catholic Church today, of course, is largely grounded in Thomism.