No. It's theological certainty. Hypostatic union is greater union that union of essence.
Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that "man is in the Son of God, more than the Son in the Father." But the Son is in the Father by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by the union of Incarnation. Therefore the union of Incarnation is greater than the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless is the greatest union; and thus the union of Incarnation implies the greatest unity.
Union implies the joining of several in some one thing. Therefore the union of Incarnation may be taken in two ways: first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to that in which they are united. And in this regard this union has a pre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person, in which the two natures are united, is the greatest. But it has no pre-eminence in regard to the things united.
The unity of the Divine Person is greater than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a Divine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received into another by participation. Also, it is complete in itself, having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as in numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by the things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to it.
I really, really wish I did. Sadly, not the case
catholicnick.blogspot.com
catholicnick.blogspot.com
catholicnick.blogspot.com
You may deny conclusion but this is what PSA means. To PSA to be true, Christ had to suffer spiritual death as protestants quoted in above links do hold as true.
Now THIS is blasphemy. Son was as we in all but sin. You are probably getting it from fact that "Christ was made sin", am I right? But "made sin" have different meaning. It's sin-offering. As fourth century commentary puts it: “in view of the fact that he was made an offering for sins, it is not wrong for him to be said to have been made ‘sin,’ because in the law the sacrifice which was offered for sins used to be called a ‘sin.’” For in Hebrew, Greek and Latin sin and sin-offering is the same word.
And again, Christ could not be "sinner" in the eyes of the Father because it's the person who sins and not the nature. We have nature that is sinful (and this is another way in which Christ "became sin" for, he is consubstantional in his human nature with us, whose flesh is full of concupiscence) but it not our nature but we ourselves that are sinners. And Christ was always united with his Father while "The Lord is far from the wicked"
You say that Christ offered Sacrifice after he ascended. But I (and Paul) say that in heaven Christ presents his sacrifice in heaven. He presents this sacrifice for all eternity. And this sacrfice that he presents in heaven is his bloody sacrfice of cross. "He delivered (that is was killed) Himself up for us, a sacrifice to God"
I never did that. Augustine rightly says that works of God that are not proper to particular person are work of whole Trinity. But Christ sacrifice was of Christ alone. For sacrifice consist of four parts to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. Christ alone was what was offered and who offered it. And he alone is the true mediator who is one for whom it was offered and to whom it was offered.
But then it would not be penal substitution for he would only substitute part of punishment dur the sin. To PSA to be true Christ would have to suffer all punishment for sin and this include separation from God, spiritual death that Adam exprienced, as quoted in links above protestants hold
Even if, contrary t all historical record, you would deny that he is was the Pope, this letter is still infallible.
Salvation
Kevin Gonzalez
Cameron Morgan
I will end here. This thread is a party of two, all what could be said was said, we start to REALLY be offtopic and I would rather spend my time on less tiresome things. Treat this replay as a form of "closing essay". It was nice while it lasted. As a form of "open closure" I will leave you with link to a blogger who spent much of his time debunking PSA. It's really good and he does it better than I ever could.
catholicnick.blogspot.com
Farewell