FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The humanity of Jesus
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I was thinkng about Jesus' humanity and I had some questions pop into my mind. Of course He was perfect at the same time but what exactly does His humanity entail?

Did Jesus ever get frustrated? Did He ever make mistakes? was He the best at everything He did eg. carpentry? Did He ever feel a sort of regret, like when Judas betrayed him?

I know He could be ignorant but could He have ever been wrong about anything humanly speaking?

There are times in the gospels where His humanity is seemingly at odds with His divinity, is there any way to explain this?
(04-12-2016, 10:18 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinkng about Jesus' humanity and I had some questions pop into my mind. Of course He was perfect at the same time but what exactly does His humanity entail?

Did Jesus ever get frustrated? Did He ever make mistakes? was He the best at everything He did eg. carpentry? Did He ever feel a sort of regret, like when Judas betrayed him?

I know He could be ignorant but could He have ever been wrong about anything humanly speaking?

There are times in the gospels where His humanity is seemingly at odds with His divinity, is there any way to explain this?



Great questions. The way I understand it is yes, He made mistakes, was ignorant of things, had to be taught and had varied skill sets just like any other human. He felt emotions just like any other human. It's really quite remarkable if really think about it. He was a human just like us in every single way, with all that being human entails, except He never sinned.
(04-13-2016, 05:04 AM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2016, 10:18 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinkng about Jesus' humanity and I had some questions pop into my mind. Of course He was perfect at the same time but what exactly does His humanity entail?

Did Jesus ever get frustrated? Did He ever make mistakes? was He the best at everything He did eg. carpentry? Did He ever feel a sort of regret, like when Judas betrayed him?

I know He could be ignorant but could He have ever been wrong about anything humanly speaking?

There are times in the gospels where His humanity is seemingly at odds with His divinity, is there any way to explain this?



Great questions. The way I understand it is yes, He made mistakes, was ignorant of things, had to be taught and had varied skill sets just like any other human. He felt emotions just like any other human. It's really quite remarkable if really think about it. He was a human just like us in every single way, with all that being human entails, except He never sinned.



Normally when I make a statement like this on a discussion forum it sets off World War III. I'm a little surprised at the lack of a reaction. Maybe we have more in common than I expected.  Smile
One has to make a lot of distinctions when answering such a question. It is not just a "yes" or "no" answer, and since we're treading close to de fide teachings, we have to be careful not to be "imaginative" or "creative" with the answers, but have to make careful reference to the Catholic dogmas.

St. Thomas speaks of Christ in his Humanity and his knowledge in the Tertia Pars beginning around Question 9.

In short:

[o]Christ had several kinds of knowledge. As God He had knowledge of everything. As Man, He had an infused knoweldge (by which He knew everything). Thus both as God and as Man He knew all things (both the actual and possible).
[o]Christ as Man also not only had infused knowledge, but an experiential knowledge (like you and I). By this knowlede He did not know all things, because He did not experience or see all things. Because, however, he had an intellect which was not clouded by the wounds of original sin and was more perfect than any other human intellect, He would have been able to come to understand by this experiential knowledge far more than we ever could.
[o]Christ did not make mistakes (in the proper sense), because He always understood the causes and effects of things. In a very loose way we could see how, humanly speaking, His choice may not have been the most immediately effective, but that is due not to His limitation, but our lack of understanding of the big picture.
[o]Christ had all the passions and sentiments which were not incompatible with His mission or nature. So when Judas betrayed Him, even though He knew it beforehand, it would have caused him grief, sadness, pain and sorrow, but not "regret".
[o]He could have been the most perfect at every art (like carpentry) because art is the "right reason in making things" and stems from knowing what causes produce what effects. Since He had the most perfect human reason and knowledge of causes and effects He would have been the best at everything He did, if that is what God willed, but we see that He did not will this in all things. God willed that Christ learn as children do, and certain skills. He clearly blended in so well in this regard that the people from Nazareth were shocked at his eloquence in the synagogue (Matt. 13.55)

In short, the humanity and divinity of Christ are never opposed, but since there are two natures in the one person there are many distinctions to be made when we see Christ act. Certain actions will proceed from His Divine nature, others from His Human nature, but these are not opposed, nor confused. That is a de fide teaching (according to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Cf. CCC #476).
(04-13-2016, 03:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]One has to make a lot of distinctions when answering such a question. It is not just a "yes" or "no" answer, and since we're treading close to de fide teachings, we have to be careful not to be "imaginative" or "creative" with the answers, but have to make careful reference to the Catholic dogmas.

St. Thomas speaks of Christ in his Humanity and his knowledge in the Tertia Pars beginning around Question 9.

In short:

[o]Christ had several kinds of knowledge. As God He had knowledge of everything. As Man, He had an infused knoweldge (by which He knew everything). Thus both as God and as Man He knew all things (both the actual and possible).
[o]Christ as Man also not only had infused knowledge, but an experiential knowledge (like you and I). By this knowlede He did not know all things, because He did not experience or see all things. Because, however, he had an intellect which was not clouded by the wounds of original sin and was more perfect than any other human intellect, He would have been able to come to understand by this experiential knowledge far more than we ever could.
[o]Christ did not make mistakes (in the proper sense), because He always understood the causes and effects of things. In a very loose way we could see how, humanly speaking, His choice may not have been the most immediately effective, but that is due not to His limitation, but our lack of understanding of the big picture.
[o]Christ had all the passions and sentiments which were not incompatible with His mission or nature. So when Judas betrayed Him, even though He knew it beforehand, it would have caused him grief, sadness, pain and sorrow, but not "regret".
[o]He could have been the most perfect at every art (like carpentry) because art is the "right reason in making things" and stems from knowing what causes produce what effects. Since He had the most perfect human reason and knowledge of causes and effects He would have been the best at everything He did, if that is what God willed, but we see that He did not will this in all things. God willed that Christ learn as children do, and certain skills. He clearly blended in so well in this regard that the people from Nazareth were shocked at his eloquence in the synagogue (Matt. 13.55)

In short, the humanity and divinity of Christ are never opposed, but since there are two natures in the one person there are many distinctions to be made when we see Christ act. Certain actions will proceed from His Divine nature, others from His Human nature, but these are not opposed, nor confused. That is a de fide teaching (according to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Cf. CCC #476).


Honestly I disagree with pretty much every statement. I'll drill down and explain a little later this evening. My only request would be to show me where this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and not the opinion of a saint.
(04-13-2016, 04:46 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly I disagree with pretty much every statement. I'll drill down and explain a little later this evening. My only request would be to show me where this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and not the opinion of a saint.

You're welcome to present your case. I've only here presented a summary of Garrigou-Lagrange's commentary on the Summa.

That said, I would just, in passing, point out that it's a bit brazen to suggest that just because something is in the Summa, that it's just merely the "opinion of a Saint".

The Angelic Doctor has been the manual for dogmatic theology for the past 700 years, has been frequently recommended by Pope as such. It was enshrined at Trent along with the Gospels as the source of much of the dogmatic teaching that Trent defined.

Granted, St. Thomas could and has been incorrect with some conclusions, but that's hardly the same as calling it "the opinion of a Saint", especially because most of the conclusions he makes are directly derived from Scripture or the Fathers.

Back to the main point, you asked for citations. Here is the relevant portion of Christ the Savior (Garrigou-Lagrange). It is replete with the citations you asked for, and rather than just parrot, I'll let the one of the 20th century's greatest dogmatic theologians speak:

Quote:it is de fide that Christ never erred, that He even could not err, or in other words, that He was already infallible in this life. It is at least the commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine that Christ's soul was free from ignorance. What follows makes this clear.

It is de fide that Christ, as man, was free from all error in His knowledge, that Christ, in fact, the founder of the Church, even in this life was infallible, just as He was impeccable.

1) Sacred Scripture is evidence of this, inasmuch as Christ says of Himself : "I am the way and the truth and the life." (Jn 14.6) As God, He is truth and life ; as man He is the way to essential truth, inasmuch as His human nature and His whole human intellectual life is personally united with essential truth. Thus, as man, He is presented to us as the master of truth, whom we must hear. "Neither be ye called masters, for one is your master, Christ," (Mt 23.10, Jn 3.11, 9.16, 19.37) and as the leader, following whom we never walk in darkness ; (Jn 8.12) who, in establishing His Church, made her infallible in her teaching, saying : "Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16.18) But if it had been possible for Christ to err, a fortiori the Church He established could err in her teaching.

2) Christ was not only infallible in the doctrine He delivered to His apostles, but also in His acts, as is evident from the Gospel narrative, for it says that Christ, already in this life, saw and knew the thoughts of men, and had complete knowledge of the free future, foretelling the events long before the time. Thus He foretold the circumstances of His passion, the destruction of Jerusalem, the continuance of His Church until the end of time. (Ibid., 20.18f, 26.21f, 16.18f, 28.19f)

Finally and especially in the Gospel it is recorded that Christ is the Word of God made flesh, "full of grace and truth." (Jn 1.14) That Christ was infallible, as we have seen, not only in the doctrine He delivered, and the events affirmed by Him, but this also follows as universally established by reason of the hypostatic union. The Word, indeed, assumed the complete human nature, but free from error and sin, for as sin is evil of the will, error is evil of the intellect ; and as it is
absolutely repugnant, as will be stated farther on, that the Word incarnate sinned or even was able to sin, so it was repugnant that He erred or even was able to err. For error would reflect on the very person of the Word in accordance with the adage : actions are attributed to the supposita. Hence error and sin cannot be attributed to the Word of God, who is essentially truth and holiness. Thus it is commonly said to be de fide that Christ, as man, the founder of the infallible
Church, was infallible. To show the truth of this discursion by the explanatory method suffices, namely, an explanation of the terms of revelation, for an objectively illative method of reasoning is not necessary, namely, one by which a new truth is acquired that is not in itself revealed. It is at least commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine, that Christ's knowledge was absolutely exempt from all ignorance and not only from error.

St. Thomas proves this, presupposing that Christ had both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge. (Cf. ST III q.10, a.2, q.11, a.1) But it is first fitting to manifest
the truth of this assertion from Sacred Scripture and tradition, so that by a quasi a posterori method it may afterward be clearly seen how it befitted Him to have this beatific knowledge even in this life.

Sacred Scripture. The texts already quoted state clearly that Christ's knowledge was absolutely exempt from all ignorance. Thus Christ is declared "full of grace and truth." (Jn 1.14) He also knew the secrets of hearts (Mt 16.8, Mk 7.17, Jn 2.24 f) as also distant objects and the free future ((Jn 1.48, 11.14, Mt 20.15 f) These texts, however, do not refer to His uncreated knowledge, but to His human knowledge, which governed His human operation. Therefore Christ as man was exempt from all ignorance. Thus as man He was, as He Himself said, the way that leads to the truth and life.

Tradition likewise establishes more clearly that Christ's knowledge was immune from ignorance, especially from the declaration of St. Gregory the Great to the patriarch of Alexandria against the Agnoetae. The Pope says : "[But] concerning what is written : 'of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,' (Mk 13.32) this has been most correctly understood by your beatitude, since this text most certainly refers not to the Son, inasmuch as He is the head
[of the Church] , but to His body which we are. [St. Augustine] also says ... that it can be understood of the Son, because the omnipotent God does speak at times in a human way, as when He said to Abraham : 'Now I know that thou fearest God .' (Gn 22.12) It is not because then God Himself knew that He was feared but because then He made Abraham acknowledge that he feared God . For just as we declare a day joyful, not that the day itself is joyful, but because it makes us joyful, so the omnipotent Son says that He does not know the day which He causes to be unknown, not because He does not know it, but because He does not at all permit it to be known ... And so the knowledge He did not have according to His human nature, which made Him, like the angels, a creature, this knowledge along with the angels who are creatures He said He did not have. Therefore He who is God and man knows the day and the hour of judgment; but the reason for this is because God is man. But the issue is most manifest, for whoever is not a Nestorian can nowise be an Agnoete. For anyone who confesses the very incarnate wisdom of
God, how can he say there is anything that the wisdom of God does not know ? It is also written : 'Jesus knowing that the Father had given Him all things into His hands.' (Jn 13.3) If He knows all things, assuredly He knows the day and the hour of the judgment ; therefore who is so foolish as to say that the Son received into His hands what He was ignorant of ? " (Dz 248)

In accordance with this doctrine thus explicitly formulated by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the common teaching of theologians will always be that Christ knew the day of judgment in His human nature, but not by reason of His human nature, which means that He did not know it by the natural light of the created intellect. Thus
the angels, too, know this day only if they are supernaturally enlightened (Cf. ST III q.10, a.2 ad 1).

Before the time of St. Gregory several Fathers spoke in a similar manner, namely, that Christ knows all things, even the day and hour of the judgment ; but He is silent about this latter event, or He says He does not know because He does not permit it to be known, and because it is not expedient that men be informed about it (Such are the comments of St. Basil, Adv. Eunom. Bk, IV, chap. 3)  St. Augustine teaches that ignorance can in no way be attributed to that Infant in whom the Word was made flesh (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, Bk. II, chap. 48)

Sophronius (RJ 2290) is of the same opinion, and St. John Damascene says : "If the flesh from the moment of conception was immediately united with God . . . and the two constituted one identical suppositum, then how can it be that it was not endowed with absolutely all the gifts of wisdom and grace ?" (RJ 2368) It is in this sense that the Fathers interpreted the words "full of grace and truth," concerning the Word incarnate.

In our times there are several Modernist propositions that have been condemned by the Church concerning Christ's knowledge.(Dz 2032-2035) Among these are : "The natural sense of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ." (Lamentabili, prop. 32) "Christ was not always conscious of His Messianic dignity." (Lamentabili, prop. 35)

Also later on the Holy Office declared that the following propositions cannot be safely taught : (1) "There is no evidence that Christ's soul in this life possessed that knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have ; (2) That opinion cannot be called certain that concludes Christ's soul was exempt from ignorance, but knew everything in the Word, past, present, and future, from the moment of His conception, or that He knew everything God knows by His knowledge of vision ; (3) The opinion of certain more recent theologians about Christ's limited knowledge is equally to be accepted in Catholic schools, as the opinion of the ancient theologians concerning Christ's universal knowledge." (Dz 2183-2185)

If you want the explanation of the remainder of the points, the book is here. The relevant portion is from Chapter 11.

Needless to say, you will find plenty of references in the text to the appropriate Denzinger and Rouet Journal citations of the Magisterium and Fathers. St. Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange are merely making the logical conclusions from those. Then if we know that Christ was impeccable, and he could not have erred, then much of what I summarized follows.

He did not "make mistakes". He would have always been the most excellent at whatever he did as a human being because his knowledge was perfect, unless God so willed it otherwise that he would not exercise this supreme human power or excellence (e.g. the Passion).
(04-13-2016, 03:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]One has to make a lot of distinctions when answering such a question. It is not just a "yes" or "no" answer, and since we're treading close to de fide teachings, we have to be careful not to be "imaginative" or "creative" with the answers, but have to make careful reference to the Catholic dogmas.

St. Thomas speaks of Christ in his Humanity and his knowledge in the Tertia Pars beginning around Question 9.

In short:

[o]Christ had several kinds of knowledge. As God He had knowledge of everything. As Man, He had an infused knoweldge (by which He knew everything). Thus both as God and as Man He knew all things (both the actual and possible).
[o]Christ as Man also not only had infused knowledge, but an experiential knowledge (like you and I). By this knowlede He did not know all things, because He did not experience or see all things. Because, however, he had an intellect which was not clouded by the wounds of original sin and was more perfect than any other human intellect, He would have been able to come to understand by this experiential knowledge far more than we ever could.
[o]Christ did not make mistakes (in the proper sense), because He always understood the causes and effects of things. In a very loose way we could see how, humanly speaking, His choice may not have been the most immediately effective, but that is due not to His limitation, but our lack of understanding of the big picture.
[o]Christ had all the passions and sentiments which were not incompatible with His mission or nature. So when Judas betrayed Him, even though He knew it beforehand, it would have caused him grief, sadness, pain and sorrow, but not "regret".
[o]He could have been the most perfect at every art (like carpentry) because art is the "right reason in making things" and stems from knowing what causes produce what effects. Since He had the most perfect human reason and knowledge of causes and effects He would have been the best at everything He did, if that is what God willed, but we see that He did not will this in all things. God willed that Christ learn as children do, and certain skills. He clearly blended in so well in this regard that the people from Nazareth were shocked at his eloquence in the synagogue (Matt. 13.55)

In short, the humanity and divinity of Christ are never opposed, but since there are two natures in the one person there are many distinctions to be made when we see Christ act. Certain actions will proceed from His Divine nature, others from His Human nature, but these are not opposed, nor confused. That is a de fide teaching (according to the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Cf. CCC #476).



It's this kind of thinking that has always made me sympathize with the non-Chalcedonians. You talk about Christ's human and divine nature. And of course He has both a human and a divine nature. Where I think you start to err is when you say His human nature does this and His divine nature does that. A nature doesn't know or do anything. A person knows and does things and Christ is one person. The person of Christ is a human and humans have limitations. Humans make mistakes, humans have emotions, humans learn. If a human makes mistakes then Jesus the human made mistakes. If humans are not omniscient then Jesus the human was not omniscient.

Scripture is crystal clear, Christ the human differs from us in only one way, He never sinned. If not for the kenosis Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. Only a human with all of our weaknesses and frailities could make Christ's sacrifice on the Cross meaningful.
(04-13-2016, 07:15 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]That said, I would just, in passing, point out that it's a bit brazen to suggest that just because something is in the Summa, that it's just merely the "opinion of a Saint"



I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

Is Thomas Aquinas a saint? Yes.

Are his writings in the Summa his opinion? Yes.

Therefore his writings in the Summa that you referenced are by definition the opnions of a saint. Basic logic really.  Smile

(04-13-2016, 07:23 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]You talk about Christ's human and divine nature. And of course He has both a human and a divine nature. Where I think you start to err is when you say His human nature does this and His divine nature does that. A nature doesn't know or do anything. A person knows and does things and Christ is one person.
It is the hypostasis (person) which acts, yes, but this hypostasis is not the principle, or source of the power. The power to act comes from the nature.

That is how we can, without confusing the natures, distinguish Christ acting at one point as man and at another as God. If we refuse this distinction then we deny the dual natures, as there is then no way to distinguish. We, contrary to Chalcedon, confuse the natures.

Christ as man says "be thou opened", but it is Christ as God who works the miraculous cure. As man, Christ does not have the power to work a miracle, only to be the instrumental cause of the material action in which the miracle is worked. As God, Christ has the power to cause the miracle.

(04-13-2016, 07:23 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]The person of Christ is a human and humans have limitations. Humans make mistakes, humans have emotions, humans learn. If a human makes mistakes then Jesus the human made mistakes. If humans are not omniscient then Jesus the human was not omniscient.

The person of Christ is not merely human, recall that the Son is the Second Person of the Trinity.

You err in your logic by confusing terms. Men, being created beings are limited. That includes Christ, who is true man. Yet "limited" does not mean "fallible".
It is not in the nature of men to err or make mistakes. It is in the nature of fallen man to err, because he does not have the preternatural gifts and has a wounded nature.

Christ does not have a wounded nature, and as demonstrated above, it is de fide that Christ, even as man, was infallible (Constantinople II : Dz 224). Were he fallible, the whole Christian Faith would be also, since it was Christ as man who taught men the Gospel, and Christ as man who founded the Church.

(04-13-2016, 07:23 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]Scripture is crystal clear, Christ the human differs from us in only one way, He never sinned. If not for the kenosis Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. Only a human with all of our weaknesses and frailities could make Christ's sacrifice on the Cross meaningful.

Scripture is clear. But the Magisterium is also clear as to what exactly that phrase means. It is de fide that Christ did not suffer from the wound of the concupiscence (His passions were not disordered and so there was not even an inclination to sin). (Cf Dz 224)

But St. Thomas is also clear (III q.14-15) that Christ did take on many of the defects which belong to men. He took on a body that could suffer, he felt pain, hunger, thirst, etc. St. Thomas will say Christ assumed every defect which was compatible with His Mission.

You continue to confuse terms. "Kenosis" has nothing to do with Christ being fallible. It is the subjection of His Human Will to the Divine Will. You are right that this is the essence of Christ's sacrifice, since it is by this obedience that men were saved (Cf. Rom 5.19)

(04-13-2016, 07:28 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2016, 07:15 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]That said, I would just, in passing, point out that it's a bit brazen to suggest that just because something is in the Summa, that it's just merely the "opinion of a Saint"

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

Is Thomas Aquinas a saint? Yes.

Are his writings in the Summa his opinion? Yes.

Therefore his writings in the Summa that you referenced are by definition the opnions of a saint. Basic logic really.

Is Pope St. Leo I a Saint? Is St. Augustine a Saint? Yes

Are their writings their opinion? Yes

So what they say can just be casually dismissed as the opinion of one holy man among many? Of course not.

Clearly there's a difference between a mere opinion of a St. Térèse (who is certainly orthodox, but never proposed to set out to explain dogmatic theology) and a text of doctrinal theology which has been not only approved by the Church, but continually recommended and promoted by the Church.

St. Thomas may not be infallible, but you're going to have to come up with a pretty good argument to dismiss anything in the Summa as "opinion". For the Catholic Church, it has been adopted as one of her primary sources in theology.
(04-13-2016, 03:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ][o]Christ had several kinds of knowledge. As God He had knowledge of everything. As Man, He had an infused knoweldge (by which He knew everything). Thus both as God and as Man He knew all things (both the actual and possible).
[o]Christ as Man also not only had infused knowledge, but an experiential knowledge (like you and I). By this knowlede He did not know all things, because He did not experience or see all things. Because, however, he had an intellect which was not clouded by the wounds of original sin and was more perfect than any other human intellect, He would have been able to come to understand by this experiential knowledge far more than we ever could.

Could you -- rather, would you (since I imagine you danged well could, you brainiac! LOL) -- explain this further to me? These two phrases sound flat-out contradictory: "Thus both as God and as Man, He knew all things" AND "By this knowledge, He did not know all things because He did not experience or see all things." Is the key the phrase "by this knowledge"? In other words, He knew by a different kind of knowledge (infused knowledge), but not by experiential knowledge? If so, doesn't that still contradict "both as God and as Man, He knew all things"?

Please know that I am very much *not* debating you; I am trying to fill in the large gaps in my understanding of these things.
Pages: 1 2