Films 'Risen' and 'The Young Messiah'

  • Thread starter Thread starter lilycat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robyn_p said:
Mr. Armstrong

Have you seen this piece by Steven Greydanus that argues the movie’s depiction of Jesus’ human consciousness is not heretical? .
Click to expand...
Yes; I cited that and in effect replied to it in my two papers. He responded very nicely, so we may interact about it in the future.
 
I hope the podcast I listen to does an episode on Young Messiah. They will probably do “God’s Not Dead 2” which will be super funny.
 
Pons said:
Big fan, Mr. Armstrong. Did you review Risen too?
Click to expand...
Hi there. Thanks for reading my stuff!

I didn’t review Risen but I saw it and thought it was excellent and contained nothing contrary to the Catholic faith, as Young Messiah does. It was a classic example of how a film can expand upon what we do know from the Bible, without contradicting either the Bible or Catholic doctrine. I absolutely loved it.
 
Maybe it’s because I’m a mom who has raised several 7-8 year olds and more headed that way, but I find it completely believable that Jesus would need to learn to control His power to heal, harm, and everything else. He would need to be taught all we need to be taught. He wasn’t born talking, walking, potty trained or able to reason any more than any other child is. Have you ever noticed how little boys don’t know their own strength? Have you ever noticed they can’t keep secrets? From the USCCB website:

The Boy Jesus in the Temple.*
41
Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover,p
42
and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom.
43
After they had completed its days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it.
44
Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
45
but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.
46
After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions,
47
and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers.
48
When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.”
49
And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”*
50
But they did not understand what he said to them.
51
He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.q
52
And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man.r

From reading that bible passage it could reasonably be drawn that there could be people searching for Jesus and a danger to Him. It also clearly states that He was growing in wisdom. He still had a lot to learn from Mary and Joseph. Why else would He be born into a family and not just come as a grown man? We are taught as Catholics that Jesus is fully God AND fully human. In order to be fully human He started as all humans do and grew and developed as all humans do. None of us are aware of who we are until we are fully grown. As we grow we realize things about ourselves and our parents teach us and guide is so that we can grow in understanding. Some adults still struggle with finding who they are. I don’t find it difficult to believe Jesus went through these very basic human developmental milestones as well. As a mom I can only imagine what it would be like to try to teach my little boys that just because they can raise the dead doesn’t mean they should, nor should they strike people blind when the person hurts them. Boys react without thinking. I say this as a mom of five boys ages 7-17, and 3 daughters as well. Apparently several priests and bishops also see it as not heretical because they have written reviews and endorsements for it.
 
You haven’t had a son that was God incarnate: a bit of a difference there. Read my two papers on the film one / two].

The Church teaches that Jesus in His human nature acquired certain forms of knowledge, but it also teaches that His human nature contained no ignorance, and that He possessed the Beatific Vision from conception. This necessarily included knowledge of His own Divinity. These matters are complex. They’re not so simple that all we have to do is look at our own children and conclude that a child Who is God would be no different.

It ain’t just me saying this. It’s “theologically certain” Church teaching. I documented all this. The Catholic either accepts Church teaching or they decide to go their own way and reject it and engage in all sorts of subjective speculation.
 
DaveArmstrong said:
You haven’t had a son that was God incarnate: a bit of a difference there. Read my two papers on the film one / two].

The Church teaches that Jesus in His human nature acquired certain forms of knowledge, but it also teaches that His human nature contained no ignorance, and that He possessed the Beatific Vision from conception. This necessarily included knowledge of His own Divinity. These matters are complex. They’re not so simple that all we have to do is look at our own children and conclude that a child Who is God would be no different.

It ain’t just me saying this. It’s “theologically certain” Church teaching. I documented all this. The Catholic either accepts Church teaching or they decide to go their own way and reject it and engage in all sorts of subjective speculation.
Click to expand...
Of course none of my sons are, but they are fully human just as Jesus was. There are traditions in many cultures around the world that Joseph should be highly revered because he is the one that needed to teach Jesus. At least none of us as parents have the job of teaching God.

I happen to not agree. And that is alright. Apparently there are bishops and priests that also do not agree. There is no way any of us can really know, but if Jesus is FULLY human as well as God, this fits. And it doesn’t go against anything in scripture. Scripture states that He grew in wisdom and was obedient to His parents (Mary and Joseph).
 
bitterhope said:
There is no way any of us can really know, but if Jesus is FULLY human as well as God, this fits. And it doesn’t go against anything in scripture. Scripture states that He grew in wisdom and was obedient to His parents (Mary and Joseph).
Click to expand...
Obviously, you haven’t read my papers. In them, I lay out the doctrine of the Church. Your disagreement is with Holy Mother Church, not me. Bishops can be wrong in particulars. Did you think they couldn’t? Even a pope can occasionally express a heretical view (e.g., John XXII, who temporarily taught an error regarding the Beatific Vision). Read about the Arian controversies in the early centuries. Vast numbers of bishops were heretics, and it was the laypeople who corrected them and maintained the true faith.

Cardinal Newman wrote a whole book about it.
 
DaveArmstrong said:
Yes; I cited that and in effect replied to it in my two papers. He responded very nicely, so we may interact about it in the future.
Click to expand...
Hi, Mr. Armstrong (BTW, I sent you a FB PM)

All your help on this issue is greatly appreciated. Can you tell me is there an Ex Cathedra statement on the hypostatic union, and Christ knowing His Godhood early? I have someone splitting hairs with me…

Thanks.
Karen
 
KarensMusic said:
Hi, Mr. Armstrong (BTW, I sent you a FB PM)

All your help on this issue is greatly appreciated. Can you tell me is there an Ex Cathedra statement on the hypostatic union, and Christ knowing His Godhood early? I have someone splitting hairs with me…

Thanks.
Karen
Click to expand...
Glad to be of assistance to you. The Hypostatic Union is de fide. The question of Jesus knowing Who He was is not, but it is “sent. certa” (“theologically certain”). Here is an excerpt from my first post about the film:
Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a solid source for the determination of what the Church teaches on a doctrinal and dogmatic level. Dr. Ott provides the following dogmatic statements (his bolding):
Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)
Click to expand...
. . . Christ’s soul possessed it in this world . . . from the Conception. . . . (p. 162)
**
Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa**.) Cf. D2184 et seq. (p. 165)
Click to expand...
Dr. Ott explains “Sent. certa.” (pp. 9-10) as follows:
A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
Click to expand...
One question that follows, regarding the present subject matter, is: if Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from conception, is it possible for anyone to say that this did not include His knowledge of His Divinity?

Dr. Bryan R. Cross is a professor of theology and also has a Master of Divinity degree from Covenant Theological seminary. He wrote on a Facebook thread (I have his permission to cite his words and name):
Let’s distinguish between the claim that with regard to “acquired knowledge” Christ was initially ignorant in His human intellect, and the claim that with regard to the Beatific Vision Christ was ignorant in His human intellect until some later point in life (say, the age of reason). The former is not a theological error; the sort of knowledge in which Jesus grew during His earthly life was acquired knowledge.
Click to expand...
But the magisterial teaching that Christ had the Beatific Vision in His human intellect from conception (cf. Mystici Corporis, 75) requires at least the third grade of theological assent (requiring religious submission of mind and will). And knowledge (in His human intellect) of His divine identity is necessarily included in what He knew through the Beatific Vision, because through the Vision He knew all things that pertained to His earthly mission.
Click to expand...
The doctrine of Jesus’ knowledge of His own Divinity from the time of His conception is not a dogma at the highest level (de fide), so the denial of it cannot be properly called a “heresy” *, but it is a theologically certain truth of the Catholic faith. Hence, Dr. Cross observed:
It isn’t heresy, but, the nearly unanimous consensus of Catholic theologians from the beginning of the thirteenth century up until Pius XII held that Christ in His human soul and human intellect possessed the Beatific Vision from conception, and thus from conception knew in His human intellect that He was God. That’s not something we moderns should simply dismiss as though it carries no weight at all.
Click to expand...
[Material] heresy is limited to the denial of that which requires the first grade of assent. There isn’t a technical name for the denial of that which requires the third grade of assent.
Click to expand...
 
DaveArmstrong said:
Obviously, you haven’t read my papers. In them, I lay out the doctrine of the Church. Your disagreement is with Holy Mother Church, not me. Bishops can be wrong in particulars. Did you think they couldn’t? Even a pope can occasionally express a heretical view (e.g., John XXII, who temporarily taught an error regarding the Beatific Vision). Read about the Arian controversies in the early centuries. Vast numbers of bishops were heretics, and it was the laypeople who corrected them and maintained the true faith.

Cardinal Newman wrote a whole book about it.
Click to expand...
The church says Jesus is fully God and fully man. He was human in all ways aside from sin. The movie is a retelling of traditions that many cultures express. Jesus grew from a child and during those years He had to learn everything all human children learn. He learned to walk, was potty trained, learned to speak, learned to obey his parents, and everything else. I did read your papers, I just don’t agree with your assessment. I respect your assessment, but I don’t agree.
 
I am glad that these films are out in the mainstream. It shows that there still is a religious presence in Hollywood. I hope these films succeed.
 
Thanks to everyone for the informative posts in this thread. They helped me discern which was a better way to spend my money.

I just saw Risen and really enjoyed it on every level - no complaints (which is unusual for me for a movie). Joseph Fiennes in particular was excellent. I highly recommended it as an option for Holy Week viewing coming up!
 
Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I knew I could count on you for your insights. I truly hope all on this thread realize who you are, your expertise in apologetics, and your gracious answers on this topic.

We all need to set aside our ‘WANT’ on the desire to see this cinematically beautiful film, and go straight to our ‘NEED’ to know and accept only that which is theologically sound. Error is the devil’s tool to draw us away. We know personally from a Protestant university where my husband teaches, where they ‘allow’ Catholic students to attend. Slowly, systematically, error is entering into the hearts of these young people, drawing them away and into Protestantism. They are exchanging Truth for a lie…tragic.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Karen
DaveArmstrong said:
Glad to be of assistance to you. The Hypostatic Union is de fide. The question of Jesus knowing Who He was is not, but it is “sent. certa” (“theologically certain”). Here is an excerpt from my first post about the film:
Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a solid source for the determination of what the Church teaches on a doctrinal and dogmatic level. Dr. Ott provides the following dogmatic statements (his bolding):

Dr. Ott explains “Sent. certa.” (pp. 9-10) as follows:

One question that follows, regarding the present subject matter, is: if Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from conception, is it possible for anyone to say that this did not include His knowledge of His Divinity?

Dr. Bryan R. Cross is a professor of theology and also has a Master of Divinity degree from Covenant Theological seminary. He wrote on a Facebook thread (I have his permission to cite his words and name):

The doctrine of Jesus’ knowledge of His own Divinity from the time of His conception is not a dogma at the highest level (de fide), so the denial of it cannot be properly called a “heresy” , but it is a theologically certain truth of the Catholic faith. Hence, Dr. Cross observed:
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top