The young messiah is a fictional account based on a book written by a woman who wants women priests. The story itself sounds heretical because it makes it look like Jesus did not know who he was!
Well, it might not be heretical. Depends on how they handle it. The relationship between Christ’s omniscience (as God) and his limited human knowledge (as man) is something we don’t fully understand. Here’s what the Church teaches:
470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed,” in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity.” The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity: (516; 626)
The Son of God … worked with human hands;
he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. (2599)
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul. (363)
472 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: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. ** This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.“105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
474 By its union to 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.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.
This is a deep mystery, but what it basically means is that the Son of God - in his divine nature - was omniscient, but in his human nature, he had to think and learn like we do. This means that at least when he was a zygote, he had no human knowledge of who he was, and most likely not even as an infant, since infants have no sense or knowledge of self. In fact, children don’t develop that for several years. So in that time frame, we can assume Jesus, in his human nature, didn’t “know” (i.e. have conscious human awareness of) who he was. He probably only thought about eating and sleeping.
We know for sure that by the time of the finding in the Temple he was aware - humanly speaking - that God was his Father, but WHEN and HOW he got to that knowledge from where he was as an infant is something the Church has not defined and thus something we are free to speculate on. Which appears to be what this movie is about.
Not saying the movie isn’t heretical. It might be. But it could also be a respectful exploring of the relationship between Jesus’ human and divine knowledge. Have to wait and see I guess.
