Did Jesus always recognize His Divinity?

[lak611]

On another thread, a poster stated that Jesus gradually learned of His Divinity. The poster said "I have been taught - by my spiritual director who is a recently-retired Belgian/South African Bishop - that Jesus learned of His special nature and divine mission over a period of time, and through several epiphanies:

Development of recognition by Christ of his special mission and divinity: child of Mary and Joseph with perhaps some intimation of his divine nature; at baptism by John, Christ knew he was God’s only Son; after His temptation in the desert, he started His/God’s mission; at the Last Supper he said I and the Father are One, recognising fully his dual humanity and divinity; in the Garden of Gethsemane, he pleaded to be released from His mission: Let this cup pass from me; on the cross He suffered the final despair – Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani – and became fully divine; through the resurrection He achieved His ultimate triumph in completing his mission fully as the eternal mystical and divine Christ: salvation, redemption, everlasting life. ‘The death he so fully accepted.’

I trust that I have set out the phases correctly: this is new to me, but helped me to gain new insights into some difficult passages in the Bible. Both Monsignor and the Bishop have emphasised that Jesus only gradually became aware of his Divine nature and mission."

I have never heard anything of this sort. From my understanding of Catholic teachings, Jesus has always been omniscient, and He has always remained fully God, even while He lived on earth as a man.

 

[reneeville]

“I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.”

As Trinitarians… wouldn’t we believe that God knows who God is… in all? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

On another thread, a poster stated that Jesus gradually learned of His Divinity. The poster said "I have been taught - by my spiritual director who is a recently-retired Belgian/South African Bishop - that Jesus learned of His special nature and divine mission over a period of time, and through several epiphanies:

Development of recognition by Christ of his special mission and divinity: child of Mary and Joseph with perhaps some intimation of his divine nature; at baptism by John, Christ knew he was God’s only Son; after His temptation in the desert, he started His/God’s mission; at the Last Supper he said I and the Father are One, recognising fully his dual humanity and divinity; in the Garden of Gethsemane, he pleaded to be released from His mission: Let this cup pass from me; on the cross He suffered the final despair – Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani – and became fully divine; through the resurrection He achieved His ultimate triumph in completing his mission fully as the eternal mystical and divine Christ: salvation, redemption, everlasting life. ‘The death he so fully accepted.’

I trust that I have set out the phases correctly: this is new to me, but helped me to gain new insights into some difficult passages in the Bible. Both Monsignor and the Bishop have emphasised that Jesus only gradually became aware of his Divine nature and mission."

I have never heard anything of this sort. From my understanding of Catholic teachings, Jesus has always been omniscient, and He has always remained fully God, even while He lived on earth as a man.

No, that is not what is taught by the Catholic Church, Jesus being God from all Eternity knew everything God knows.

 

[lak611]

No, that is not what is taught by the Catholic Church, Jesus being God from all Eternity knew everything God knows.

That is always what I believed. I am trying to clarify things for the poster whom I quoted.

 

[Vincent]

If Jesus possessed the Beatific Vision from the moment of conception (Cf. Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi 75), how could he have not always known who He was?

“In that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love” (Ibid.).

If Christ enjoyed this even when he “hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God” (Ibid.) how could he be ignorant of his divine sonship?

It seems to follow that being able to see God in the face sheds light on one’s self-identity. If in the Beatific Vision “I shall know fully, as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12), then Christ knew fully as he is fully known-- from the moment of his conception.

I shall know fully who I am in the Beatific Vision. Christ wouldn’t have suffered a defect in this regard.

 

[bibleapologist]

There isn’t anything in scripture to tell us that Christ wasn’t aware of His identity before the age of 12.

We know for a fact that at the age of 12 He understood his identity (Luke 2:49).

And I see no reason to deny that He knew His identity before that time… even from the womb.

BA

 

[water]

He always recognized His Divinity.
Jesus was a man and God. He is the beginning and the end. There is nothing between that He isn’t God.

Another thing I’d like to bring up: As BA mentioned about Jesus at the age of 12. This is quite interesting for us to think about why the Bible mentioned a little bit about Him then skipped his next 18 years. At 12, He was obedient to Mary and Joseph. If He knew He was God as 12, yet He still obeyed His parents. What does it tell us about being obedient.

 

[lak611]

He always recognized His Divinity.
Jesus was a man and God. He is the beginning and the end. There is nothing between that He isn’t God.

“Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.(Douay-Rheims Version)”

“Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.(KJV)”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Pius X’s, Lamentabili (1907), condemns the proposition that “Christ did not always** have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.” (D 2035).

See more here: Was Jesus ever ignorant of his identity and mission?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I have never heard anything of this sort. From my understanding of Catholic teachings, Jesus has always been omniscient, and He has always remained fully God, even while He lived on earth as a man.

Thank you for moving to a new thread.

You may not have heard this before, but I have heard it here (in South Africa) from several religious, and I have passed it on to you: that Jesus’ perception of his nature, his mission and his divinity was in fact a process of gradual growth and understanding. Dominican Albert Nolan, in his new book *Jesus Today, *suggests that the reason we read so little of Jesus until he was 30 and beginning his mission, is because he spent a great deal of time alone, in isolation, in contemplation, in prayer, in intimacy with God, learning, learning, learning.

It would help if posters would not just say *This is not true. *It would help me if you could comment more on the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth as man, and Jesus Christ as divine Son of God. At this point, I do not believe that from birth Jesus knew he was divine. He may have been ultimately divine, but he did not know this.

Blessings

 

[Eileen_T]

Yes, well, theologians & others do not have the infallibility the pope has when speaking ex cathedra.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

St. Pius X’s, Lamentabili (1907), condemns the proposition that “Christ did not always** have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.” (D 2035).

See more here: Was Jesus ever ignorant of his identity and mission?

Thanks Dave, this is helpful, and I have read your blog article recommended. Very helpful.

Where I seem to have ended up at this point - although there is much more to be discussed about Jesus’ human and divine nature - is with a range of options, from which I must choose. I think that is a fate worse than death for many Catholics, as is apparent from postings on the Forum. There is almost an obsession about being correct, being absolutely correct, and being seen to be, in complete union, absolutely correct.

Right now I have:

1. the knowledge and guidance of the Bishop, the Monsignor and the Jesuit who are my spiritual directors here, which is reflected in my posting at the start of the thread
2. the dictats of various Popes
3. information from the Scriptures, interpreted by ordinary people in some cases, or by others (saints and Popes) who may be infallible, and by the gloriously authoritative Dr Ludig (Ludwig?) Ott
4. observations and conclusions by David Jensen
5. further and contradictory observations by the authors like those of *Living With Christ *and Jesus Today.

And this is just for starters! I am truly grateful Dave. For the moment, I choose to remain with the idea of Christ’s gradual understanding, regardless of Popes and saints (ineradicable or just stubborn heterodoxy?).

If, as a researcher, I started out on my own investigations and wrote an article as a result, would I be able to ‘prove’ my chosen tenet?

If Jesus’ gradual understanding of His divine mission is true, I find this a gloriously human understanding of Jesus, which makes his burden of our sin on the cross even more awesome and astounding. It is no wonder he cried ***Eloi, eloi ***- for he had been for an instant separated from God by the sins of mankind which he had willingly taken upon himself. At that point, he suffered as any human would suffer. His divinity did not save him from that exquisite physical torture and unimagineable burden of sin.

If Christ was solely divine, from the time of conception, He is not the Jesus of Nazareth I know and love - the man who did not choose, but accepted his divinity. In this sense his suffering and death become the supreme sacrifice of one who could, like you and me, suffer spiritual doubt (as in Gethsemane), separation from God the Father (on the cross and therefore descent into hell or its parallel), and physical pain (as at Golgotha).

But according to Catholic doctrine/dogma, I am not allowed to make a choice, am I? When confronted by conflicting views/evidence/dictats, what does one do? Go to the buffet counter like a Protestant?

Blessings

 

[Vincent]

But according to Catholic doctrine/dogma, I am not allowed to make a choice, am I? When confronted by conflicting views/evidence/dictats, what does one do? Go to the buffet counter like a Protestant?

In the final analysis, it’s a question of authority, isn’t it?

The college of bishops, as successors of the Apostles, bear the responsibility of authentically handing on what God has revealed. Among them, the bishop of Rome, who has the Petrine ministry of “confirming the brethren”, provides a unique service to the Church, and the college of bishops, in particular.

Catholics are blessed to have the teaching ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the College of bishops in union with him to clarify issues, especially when confusion abounds.

When the Bishop of Rome or the college of bishops in union with him present a teaching on faith or morals as true or at least as sure, then it’s something in which Catholics receive with joy.

In the case of Christ’s knowledge, we are “gifted” with this ministerial service by Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII.

We could without doubt find a teacher opining one thing, a priest opining its opposite, and even a bishop arguing yet something very different. However, when the Pope (or the the College of Bishops in union with him) steps in and teaches in this “authentic” manner, then Catholics are presented with a truth that they can adhere to “with religious submission of will and intellect”. Their ministry cuts through the fog of conflicting opinions and gives us something we really want to know: the truth.

So for a Catholic, the buck stops with the Pope and the College of Bishops.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

In the final analysis, it’s a question of authority, isn’t it?

The college of bishops, as successors of the Apostles, bear the responsibility of authentically handing on what God has revealed. Among them, the bishop of Rome, who has the Petrine ministry of “confirming the brethren”, provides a unique service to the Church, and the college of bishops, in particular.

Catholics are blessed to have the teaching ministry of the Bishop of Rome and the College of bishops in union with him to clarify issues, especially when confusion abounds.

When the Bishop of Rome or the college of bishops in union with him present a teaching on faith or morals as true or at least as sure, then it’s something in which Catholics receive with joy.

In the case of Christ’s knowledge, we are “gifted” with this ministerial service by Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII.

We could without doubt find a teacher opining one thing, a priest opining its opposite, and even a bishop arguing yet something very different. However, when the Pope (or the the College of Bishops in union with him) steps in and teaches in this “authentic” manner, then Catholics are presented with a truth that they can adhere to “with religious submission of will and intellect”. Their ministry cuts through the fog of conflicting opinions and gives us something we really want to know: the truth.

So for a Catholic, the buck stops with the Pope and the College of Bishops.

Vincent, I am truly grateful for your thoughtul, authoritative and dispassionate reply. It is what I have been waiting for. It’s something I can use - and move ahead in my thinking and understanding. Thank you.

 

[FCEGM]

Vincent, I am truly grateful for your thoughtul, authoritative and dispassionate reply. It is what I have been waiting for. It’s something I can use - and move ahead in my thinking and understanding. Thank you.

Carol, the late Fr. William G. Most wrote the book The Consciousness of Christ which is now available in electronic form; I hope you find it helpful in forming your assent to the Church’s teaching:

catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=215

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… But according to Catholic doctrine/dogma, I am not allowed to make a choice, am I? When confronted by conflicting views/evidence/dictats, what does one do? Go to the buffet counter like a Protestant?

Perhaps it will help to understand Catholic epistemology. In theological matters, the principle norm for determining Christian doctrine is **authority.**If you think about it, unless Jesus has appeared to you directly (which is possible), the only reason we know anything about Jesus is because of **authority. **In the first century, it was the authority of those who witnessed the resurrection directly. They told others what they had seen, and presumably they seemed like trustworthy witnesses, or else Christianity would be one of the many religious sects that have been forgotten over the centuries.

It was and is apostolic authority which is the norm for Catholics in determining Christian doctrine. The apostles were seen, in the first century, as having authority to teach in the name of Jesus. Those who found those miracle-working apostles to be trustworthy witnesses, submitted to their authority on matters religious and became known as Christians.

Catholics continue this epistemological principle with refard to discerning what is Christian doctrine. They submit to apostolic authority, which is vested in the historic and lawful successors of the apostles.

In contrast to non-Catholic epistemology, Catholics don’t get to “think up” our own doctrine. While reason and experience are significant factors in our coming to more fully undrestand and believe a doctrine to be true, it is principally because of authority that Christianity even exists, and therefore it is authority which is the principles and proximate norm for discerning Christian doctrine.

I think this point is not well understood by non-Catholics who attempt to discourse with Catholics.

Consequently, Fr. X, or Sister Y, or theologian Z, while perhaps acting in “good faith,” are not among my authoritative “chain of command” in Catholic ecclesiology. Their conclusions as learned theologians forever remain “opinion” and subject to “peer review” according to Catholic ecclesiology, unless they are also vested with magisterial authority by those who have historical apostolic succession within the Catholic Church, either directly or delegated (as in one being appointed as my pastor).

So Catholic ecclesiology presents the authoritative teaching, sanctifying, and governing hierarchy, the ecclesiological “chain of command” as: 1) my pastor, 2) my diocesan bishop, and 3) my pope. The teachings of these three living priests are the principle and proximate norm for my understanding of Christian doctrine.

As Catholics, we are called to obey and submit to those who have been given pastoral charge over our souls (cf. Heb 13:17). Thus, the opinions of some other bishop, or priest, while helpful (ie., a remote norm of understanding) insofar as their educational credentials are concerned, their teachings are not authoritative in the Catholic ecclesiological sense of “binding” unless someone in my “chain of command” determines that such a teaching is “binding.”

Faced with various theological views, Catholic theologians understand that the weight of papal teaching trumps the opinion of other bishops and priests or theologians. One should not choose a contrary opinion as though it were equal in value to formally promulgated papal doctines…not if one professes to be Catholic, because that is incongruent with Catholicsm.

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

“If one loves the Pope…one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

 

[elmatt]

From my understanding, theologians have been debating this issue since the beginning of church history. The common agreed consensus was that Jesus was fully divine and fully human. To me that means Jesus’ Divinity MUST have allowed him to know and see everything; However if Jesus was fully human he MUST of had to experience the same uncertainties that we all have…now, how do we explain that, I don’t know; it is one of the mysteries of our faith.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

So Catholic ecclesiology presents the authoritative teaching, sanctifying, and governing hierarchy, the ecclesiological “chain of command” as: 1) my pastor, 2) my diocesan bishop, and 3) my pope. The teachings of these three living priests are the principle and proximate norm for my understanding of Christian doctrine.

As Catholics, we are called to obey and submit to those who have been given pastoral charge over our souls (cf. Heb 13:17). Thus, the opinions of some other bishop, or priest, while helpful (ie., a remote norm of understanding) insofar as their educational credentials are concerned, their teachings are not authoritative in the Catholic ecclesiological sense of “binding” unless someone in my “chain of command” determines that such a teaching is “binding.”

My Catholic authorities, and mentors of my faith, my spiritual directors in this increasingly hopeless attempted conversion to Catholicism are

1. the retired Catholic Belgian/South African Bishop of Klerksdorp
2. the Catholic Monsignor Belgian/South African parish priest, Brooklyn Pretoria and
3. an eminent and very senior Jesuit Irish/Zambian priest in Lusaka, Zambia, my international HIV/AIDS colleague.

That is my chain of command: eminently Catholic in all aspects, respected universally here, and of the world, as well as of the faith. Does this mean that 'their teachings are not authoritative in the Catholic ecclesiological sense of ‘binding’ unless someone in your ‘chain of command’ determines that such a teaching is ‘binding’?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…That is my chain of command…

According to Catholic ecclesiology, the source of sacerdotal unity is the Apostolic See, the Pope. I don’t see him in your chain of command, but he is indeed the chief pastor of all Catholics. I also don’t see your current Ordinary, the diocesan bishop vested with ordinary magisterial authority for your local diocese (if you were in a religious order, your Ordinary would be a different person than the local diocesan bishop).

Catholics are bound to submit to the teaching authority of their current Ordinary (bishop), who is appointed to govern, teach, and sanctify in the diocese. That bishop can appoint pastors to teach on his behalf within his jurisdiction, eg. your local parish pastor. However, the pastor’s authority is derived from the authority of the bishop, and he is only authorized to teach congruent with the teaching of the bishop.

The Catholic faithful (including your diocesan bishop) are also bound to submit to the Roman Pontiff. So, for most Catholics (religious orders are an exceptional case), the chain of command is parish pastor-diocesan bishop-pope, the pope being the chief pastor of the one Catholic Church.

According to the First Vatican Council:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

Consequently, if a pastor or bishop were to teach that “Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity,” they would be teaching something condemned by the Roman Pontiff, and thereby contrary to that which by canon law they are held bound.

Catholics in your diocese are bound by their sacerdotal “chain of command” while Catholics in my diocese are bund by my sacerdotal chian of command, both of which have sacerdotal unity in the Roman Pontiff. If either my or your pastor teaches contradictory from our respective bishops, then they act outside the scope of their authority. Moreoever, if either my or your bishop teaches contradictory from the pope, they too act outside the scope of their authority.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Consequently, if a pastor or bishop were to teach that “Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity,” they would be teaching something condemned by the Roman Pontiff, and thereby contrary to that which by canon law they are held bound.

I live in Africa - have travelled all over Africa for years, and watched its religious practices. While the theory is sound - and one that I have understood for a long time - in practice that is not the way it works. You must remember that congregants are relatively uneducated, and that religious are not always soundly rooted in all aspects of doctrine. Further, the sheer practical difficulties - given poverty, HIV and political disruption - of carefully following your schema, with regard to a number of matters, is patently impossible and largely - of necessity - disregarded. Yes, the theory is known. No it cannot always be followed.

This is not just applicable to the chain of command, but to doctrine and dogma as well. If you asked the average church-goer here, from a degraded urban community, or from an isolated rural community, whether Christ always recognised his own divinity, you would receive a look of pure confusion. People look for comfort, succour and safety in the church, not theory. And that often goes for the clergy as well.

A new papal nuncio has arrived in South Africa charged, as a matter of priority, with designating 16 new bishops to fill vacant posts. Few new clergy are coming from North America or from Europe as in the past. We are indigenizing the Church, but there are often difficulties. Two local priests were discharged within the last two months for gross abuse of their positions. Those who are in post are new, and struggle with dogma and doctrine just like the rest of us.

A parish priest here is often too busy building a church or two, finding his own accommodation, running a home for the disabled or HIV orphans under difficult logistical conditions, caring for sufferers and families, the mourners, finding support for those who hunger - and die of it in the case of many in Zimbabwe.

I discussed some while ago with my SD the problems of keeping up with latest information on doctrine and practice: it is not a matter of priority for him, as there are too many other clerical responsibilities to perform; and too many cultural backgrounds to cover. A priest for 40 years, in the black townships, in the rural areas, and now in the wealthiest Pretoria congregation, he has determined - presumably in discussion with his bishop, what it is that should and can be taught. The chain of command of which you speak is fragile.

Finally, Monsignor X jcd, my spiritual director, IS the canon lawyer for much of South Africa. I shall make sure that he is aware of your advice.

Thank you for your explication for which I am grateful. I hope also that you will understand the practical situation here that makes the ideal difficult to perform.