tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post1954945137990592162..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Jesus knew everything, including the Day of Judgment. Obviously!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67748069558766226572012-12-08T05:49:02.155-08:002012-12-08T05:49:02.155-08:00Thank you for posting. I had never wrestled with ...Thank you for posting. I had never wrestled with this particular point before.Matt25http://prayerplace.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-16029854080798011962012-11-26T10:50:40.103-08:002012-11-26T10:50:40.103-08:00jdesch67:
Try the Catechism of the Council of Tre...jdesch67:<br /><br />Try the Catechism of the Council of Trent (a.k.a. the Roman Catechism), or the Catechism of St. Pius X. Both are vastly superior.Matthew Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-48912185848540328562012-11-23T07:32:55.511-08:002012-11-23T07:32:55.511-08:00@Martin,
To the 1st question, "No". Beca...@Martin,<br />To the 1st question, "No". Because we must ordinarily use clear speech ... it is only for a good reason (as communicating the highest mysteries of the faith) that we can speak in an obscure way.<br /><br />To the 2nd question, "No". The Father knows the hour and makes it known to the Son. Both to the Son in his Divinity, but even in his humanity. This is why the Father is said to know and make it known, but the Son is said to not know and does not make it known.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49387503636957541052012-11-23T05:39:34.152-08:002012-11-23T05:39:34.152-08:00Cell phone post, short sentences:
Does this mean ...Cell phone post, short sentences:<br /><br />Does this mean that when my wife asks, " How much money is in the bank? " I can say - " I don't know. " Meaning, " I'm not telling you. " <br /><br />And, <br /><br />From the verse, " that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" <br /><br />Does this mean that God the Father has or will reveal the day-before the actual event? Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-50085311013248905762012-11-21T02:16:39.125-08:002012-11-21T02:16:39.125-08:00Thank you Charles Johnson.
I was asking because o...Thank you Charles Johnson.<br /><br />I was asking because on our theology college we get very much exposure to him and alas to Raymond E. Brown. :(Marko Ivančičevićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04579400863718513875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57058850302108267442012-11-20T20:53:17.115-08:002012-11-20T20:53:17.115-08:00Flamen, the problem is if you deny that Christ had...Flamen, the problem is if you deny that Christ had the Beatific vision, you run into the pesky problem of claiming He had Faith, and introducing a split in the unity of the person.<br /><br />Some of the "new theology" and ressourcement have claimed, instead, that Christ had not faith, but prophetic species of knowledge. They in effect agree with those holding He had the beatific vision that Christ was never ignorant of His divinity, didn't have faith, but seek to attribute a lesser explanation. But it ends up incoherent. For all the hackeneyed accusations against the scholastics diminishing the humanity of Christ, that is all rather poppycock. St. Thomas, as opposed to say Bonaventure and earlier authors, introduced truly human knowledge (acquired) in his treatment of Christ's knowledge. In fact, the whole move from the 11th century through the early modern period was to emphasize more and more the humanity of Christ and the historical details of the Gospel. You see this in St. Francis, in the introduction of the Crucifix rather than the Pantocrator, even in the reduction of rood screens.<br /><br />Fr. Galot is well intentioned. He is one of those who advances the "prophetic knowledge" rather than faith argument. But he thoroughly is wrong on the direction of the development of doctrine in the scholatic period (which again was emphasizing more and more His sacred humanity), and he severely misunderstands St. Thomas' arguments. Grace is the germ of eternal life, Christ through His theandric actions merits grace and ultimately glory for men, therefore He must Himself even as man possess such glory. This argument is very reasonable and the objection that He could obtain the beatific vision after the Resurrection is missing the point. Christ was redeeming men through all the actions of His life, not just the resurrection. All grace has as a final cause glory, and so if at any point Christ lacked the beatific vision He would lack the cause of causes of the redemption. Fr. Galot misunderstands the thrust of this argument, by insisting that the beatific vision only need be obtain with the resurrection.<br /><br />Fr. Galot's "solution might sound appealing, but it is utterly impossible. For to have knowledge of something is nothing less than to have an intentional species of that thing in the intellect. That is, man does not have knowledge without something actually existing in His intellect, the conception or word that represents this thing, called an impressed species. But there is no ability for there to be a created species of God. To have knowledge of God would mean to have the form of God in one's mind, just as to have knowledge of man is to have the form of man in one's mind. But God does not fall under a genus, He is not an individual of a species. He is that very form. Therefore to have knowledge and not faith in God is nothing other than the beatific vision. Anything less is not knowledge of God but faith through external signs that are not God.<br /><br />And we cannot retreat from Fr. Galot's "via media" to the position that He had faith, for if Christ had faith that He was God and did not know this, then the Logos Himself is, through the human nature He has, dividing Himself from Himself. He both knows and does not know who He is, and further He stands as other to Himself through the act of Faith. There is an excellent article in the Thomist on this very question, that goes into the reasons why Christ could not have had faith, and why Fr. Galot's solution is ontologically impossible in far better detail than I did. But I cannot find it right now.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-47232266274162801312012-11-19T13:28:58.009-08:002012-11-19T13:28:58.009-08:00Father,
If matter is infinitely divisible, then is...Father,<br />If matter is infinitely divisible, then is there not an infinite number of relations (and thus true statements) within the material world? I trust that you are correct here, and I am not understanding something correctly.Carlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-47502921122055114832012-11-19T00:49:17.447-08:002012-11-19T00:49:17.447-08:00Jesus has two intellects, one human and one divine...Jesus has two intellects, one human and one divine. His knowledge is unified in his divine Person. What he naturally knows by his human intellect is limited, as the Catechism affirms. But what he knows by his divine intellect is unlimited, and he does not lose this knowledge in assuming a limited mode of knowledge. When he says that the "Son of Man" does not know the time of the Parousia, he means that this future time is unknown through his natural human intellect, not that it is unknown through his divine intellect or unknown to his Person. Thus he knows it insofar as he is God, and he does not know it insofar as he is man. Correct? --TJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53889093367855406902012-11-18T22:29:28.757-08:002012-11-18T22:29:28.757-08:00Just want to say something about the scholar whom ...Just want to say something about the scholar whom Marko Ivančičević mentioned (Wilfred Harrington O.P.). I haven't had too much exposure to him, but I don't think he's entirely reliable in his views and I think it's fair to say that he would be of a liberal slant. So for what it's worth, I would indeed counsel caution as far as he is concerned. Just my two cents.<br /><br />-- Charles JohnsonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31189049956995764202012-11-18T20:33:07.076-08:002012-11-18T20:33:07.076-08:00In re the OP:
Jerome, a Father of your Church, I b...In re the OP:<br />Jerome, a Father of your Church, I believe, has “neque angeli in cælo, neque Filius, nisi Pater.” “the plain words of the Bible” as In re the OP:<br />Jerome, a Father of your Church, I believe, has “neque angeli in cælo, neque Filius, nisi Pater.” “the plain words of the Bible” as you put it.”<br />OTOH Mt 24 has “neque angeli cælorum, nisi solus Pater”. No mention by the Son of the Son. Except …<br />The “original hand” of the Sinaiticus- Codex Aleph, to the scholars and superior to any ms. that Jerome had- has ‘nor the Son’ in Matthew; later copies are missing it. (Removed?) In any case, Mark is enough, it seems to me. Do we ask God or his Son to repeat themselves until we are satisfied that they have given us accurate information? Are we theological Gideons?<br />There is one doctrine that does demand your view of the matter- the Trinity. Otherwise the Bible explains itself, as when it shows Jesus still subservient to Jehovah at John 17:3, Rev 3:12, Rev 14:14-16. These last two involve the risen, glorified Son, raised to life “at the right hand” of the Father, as the Bible and the creeds agree; not ‘is the Father’.<br />But you’re aware of these things. My purpose in writing is to thank you for putting in writing what the Catholic leaders believe, but which the laymen I speak to deny: When it is a choice between tradition, magisterium, and the [Catholics’ own] Bible, the first two always trump God’s clear word. Mt 15; Mr 7.<br />Without the Trinity, a word and doctrine only from post-apostolic tradition and magisterium, there is no contradiction nor confusion. What else should we expect from a book given to us by our heavenly Father for our benefit? Isa 48:17,18<br />Doug [not "anonymous"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34639991574002417452012-11-18T17:59:54.895-08:002012-11-18T17:59:54.895-08:00Dear Fr. Ryan: In Luke 2:5, "Jesus grew in ag...Dear Fr. Ryan: In Luke 2:5, "Jesus grew in age and wisdom" seems to contradict that His human mind knew all things. Fr. John C. Haughey, in his book, "The Consiracy of God" (Preface by Cardinal Suenens as the best book in English on the Holy Spirit, states:"the function that the Holy Spirit played in teaching Jesus the Father and the Kingdom, now plays in teach us Jesus" How do you respond to these two references? Deacon John Edgerton, Tarpon Springs, FL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-14434498489873117472012-11-18T13:25:04.592-08:002012-11-18T13:25:04.592-08:00Father, you appear to be using "finite" ...Father, you appear to be using "finite" and "infinite" in ways that are different than those used by mathematicians and physicists. That is only a problem if you do not clearly define what you mean. If all you mean by "finite knowledge" is "insufficient knowledge to comprehend God", remember that this is very different than "knowing a bounded number of truths". Knowing the positions of an infinite number of stars would be of no great use in contemplating the Trinity.<br /><br />Speaking from the perspective of physics, though, it is by no means clear that the universe is finite. That part which we can observe is finite, but that is a different assertion altogether. Barring divine revelation, which seems extremely unlikely to address such a triviality, we will probably never know. St. Thomas asserts that we would not even know that the universe is of finite age without divine revelation!<br /><br />-- HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-2143478463293379222012-11-18T11:38:22.331-08:002012-11-18T11:38:22.331-08:00The human remembers only with a brain. Without a b...The human remembers only with a brain. Without a brain there is no remembering. The brain works by neuronal connections of which there could only be a finite number; call this number x. The world may be finite and the number of truths we can call y. Is there anything to suggest that x=y or x > y ? In other words, is there anything to suggest that the finite human brain could know all truths ?mattymoushttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39900054865670637072012-11-18T11:19:45.482-08:002012-11-18T11:19:45.482-08:00I commented on the apparent contradictions between...I commented on the apparent contradictions between your assertion that Christ knew the day of final judgment with what is said in the Catechism in paragraphs 472-474. I do not mean any disrespect, but I am a catechist in training. What can I make of this apparent contradiction?jdesch67https://www.blogger.com/profile/17670722728820705315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-17165995896243470722012-11-18T09:48:22.516-08:002012-11-18T09:48:22.516-08:00@Howard,
I do not mean to say that you are foolish...@Howard,<br />I do not mean to say that you are foolish or have claimed anything that is foolish ... my point is that it would take a fool to say that the finite world has an infinite number of truths -- for the very point is that all created things are finite (including the human mind of Christ), and therefore he cannot know the infinite.<br /><br />But, if we were to suppose that the world is not finite, then neither would we need to suppose that the human mind of Jesus were finite -- however, the world is finite, the human mind is finite, and the human mind is capable of knowing all of the truths in this finite world (because there are not an infinite number of created truths).<br /><br />Hope that helps! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86781450995952496142012-11-18T09:46:04.745-08:002012-11-18T09:46:04.745-08:00@Anonymous,
If you will use a pseudonym (as reques...@Anonymous,<br />If you will use a pseudonym (as requested), I will happily respond to your comment.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7845750065211616942012-11-18T08:00:28.401-08:002012-11-18T08:00:28.401-08:00This seems to contradict what is said in the Catec...This seems to contradict what is said in the Catechism in paragraphs 472-474. It says "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... This corresponds to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself," (CCC 472).<br />However paragraph 474 continues "By its union with the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal." Since Christ was not sent to reveal the day of final judgment these passages seem to imply that He did not know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84213213512256300722012-11-18T07:17:24.299-08:002012-11-18T07:17:24.299-08:00Thank you Father, this is very helpful regarding s...Thank you Father, this is very helpful regarding something I have tried to understand for a long time. <br />A few things that have been helpful to me- The reason God knows the 'future' is that He is outside of time, so there is no future for Him. Rather, all time is present in an instant. He knows it as it happens, but it all happens instantanously. He knows all created things because he created them. He did not have sense knowledge of things except in the humanity of Jesus.helgothjbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406542027890269879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-73484438425618570442012-11-18T06:19:48.831-08:002012-11-18T06:19:48.831-08:00Dear Father. The execrable Catholic columnist, Fr....Dear Father. The execrable Catholic columnist, Fr. Richard McBrien, whose heresies were published all over America in Diocesan newspapers, once wrote a column that claimed that Jesus was ignorant, in error, and sexually tempted.<br /><br />I picketed my local Chancery in response and the Bishop's mouthpiece told me, "The Bishop agrees with Fr McBrien:" later, The Chancellor told me that all the Priests in the Chancery considered me insane.<br /><br />Taking into account what it was they held as orthodoxy, I took that as a compliment.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-90993304113249967062012-11-18T06:01:27.787-08:002012-11-18T06:01:27.787-08:00Father,
Thank you for your very interesting post....Father,<br /><br />Thank you for your very interesting post. I have no trouble accepting that Jesus, in His human nature, knew the date of the Second Coming. But to say that He knew all future events would mean that He knew what choices He was going to make in His human nature, before He made them, from the first moment of His conception. I understand, of course, that Jesus, being a Divine Person, was not free to sin; but perfect knowledge of His future human choices would give Him no human freedom at all. <br /><br />Would it not be more reasonable (and perfectly in keeping with Church tradition) to say that as man, Jesus knew whatever future events He wished to know, without necessarily knowing all of them at once? Thus He could instantly access the date of the Second Coming if He wished.<br /><br />Re Nestorianism: it is a heresy to say that Christ was two persons, but my understanding was that He had two Minds (just as He had two Wills): one Divine and infinite, the other human and finite. To say otherwise would be Monophysitism. Wouldn't Jesus' Divine Mind have illuminated His human mind with certain supernatural truths? Thanks, Father.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-22806960438008541782012-11-17T20:59:57.101-08:002012-11-17T20:59:57.101-08:00"What fool would say there are an unlimited n..."What fool would say there are an unlimited number of created truths?"<br /><br />I am fool enough to CONJECTURE that. There are an infinite number of mathematical truths, certainly, but I don't know if you would count mathematical truths as created truths. Also, it is possible, but not certain, that the universe is of infinite size, in which case there would be an unlimited number of truths relating to, for example, the positions of the infinite number of stars. I do not claim that many of these truths would be of interest to us!<br /><br />Would you say that thinking is not in the brain as seeing is not in the eye and smelling is not in the nose -- in other words, the brain is something like a sense organ for perceiving intellectual truths as the eye is a sense organ for perceiving light?<br /><br />-- HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60893068010951521662012-11-17T18:51:34.008-08:002012-11-17T18:51:34.008-08:00A Mitchell,
Don't be discouraged ... the Lord ...A Mitchell,<br />Don't be discouraged ... the Lord will have his Day ... and the prideful "scholars" will have no answer.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-74240321057748324902012-11-17T18:50:03.371-08:002012-11-17T18:50:03.371-08:00Flamen, you write as either one who is wholly igno...Flamen, you write as either one who is wholly ignorant of the tradition on this point, or who has decided that he is smarter than every Doctor of the Church.<br /><br />The thought that Christ couldn't both be perfectly happy in the higher part of his soul while suffering in the lower part is simply ridiculous ... rather than simply hurling accusations of heresy, provide a philosophical argument.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77746814016245216692012-11-17T12:24:56.078-08:002012-11-17T12:24:56.078-08:00You state that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. This...You state that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. This implies relative omniscience and perfect bliss. However, there is no basis in Scripture or the Patristic Tradition that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. Scholastics who wanted to attribute every possible perfection to the human nature of Jesus maintained that He had the beatific vision. It is not an infallible teaching of the Church although it has even been mentioned in an Encyclical of Pius XII. Two points should be considered. First, the evidence in the New Testament of the limitation of Jesus’ knowledge, e.g. regarding the Parousia “no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” For many examples of the limitation of Jesus’ human knowledge see Raymond E. Brown, S.S., An Introduction To New Testament Christology. Second, “How admit that Christ could really have suffered in his human nature the terrible trial of the Passion if he already possessed the beatitude reserved for the elect in heaven? How, too, could we take the agony of Gethsemane and the dereliction of Calvary seriously? Since the entire process of the Incarnation is oriented towards the work of the Redemption, the beatific vision must be excluded from Jesus’ earthly life. … He did not have the immediate vision or the beatitude of the vision.” Jean Galot, S.J., Who Is Christ? That Jesus had extraordinary knowledge is evident from the Gospels and that would be understood as the limited infused knowledge necessary for his mission. To say that Jesus had the Beatific Vision would mean that he had perfect bliss and thence could not experience true suffering. This is contrary to the Gospels and the Creed which declares Jesus SUFFERED and died for us and comes close to the heresy of Docetic GnosticismFlamenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400536337109584939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-91037339412480296712012-11-17T11:59:25.519-08:002012-11-17T11:59:25.519-08:00Thank you Father.
Yes i know it is a big discussi...Thank you Father. <br />Yes i know it is a big discussion. I plan on reading on God's Knowledge, Providence of God, Predestination, Book of Life, Free Will, and Grace, from Summa in hope of clearing up this things to myself.<br /><br />Do you suggest any good read on the topic of relations of God's Grace and our free will(and predestination/reprobation) except your previous article which was, and still is, excellent?Marko Ivančičevićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04579400863718513875noreply@blogger.com